So they have updated Psychic Shriek in 7th by increasing its range to 18" but as far as I can see they have done nothing do clear up the old issues surrounding the Witchfires must roll to hit business. So the questions still remain over how many dice need to be rolled (if any), and whether a failed roll has any bearing on whether the power can still be resolved.

Is this still the case or have I missed something? If it hasn't been addressed it's pretty poor that they didn't take to opportunity of a new rulebook to do so. I'm sure they had more than a few e-mails on the subject. I suppose they solved the same problem with Puppet Master by removing the power.

If it's witchfire it rolls to hit.

If it hits it does the given number of wounds described in the rulebook.

That's how I play it and have since last edition when it was the main reason why weaken resolve/psychic shriek wasn't an autotake for IG.

rules wrote:a witchfire power must roll To Hit, unless it is[sic] has the Blast special rule, in which case it scatters as described in the Blast special rule, or it is a Template weapon, which hit automatically.

Couldn't be more clear.

Psychic Shriek is neither a Blast nor Template; it must roll to hit.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Couldn't be more clear.

Well the number of threads this issue was discussed in in relation to the 6E rules suggests this isn't quite true.

For the avoidance of doubt however the point of my post wasn't to re-open a rules debate if nothing has changed from 6th as that discussion has been done to death. I just wanted to check whether there had been any relevant rule amendments I hadn't spotted.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

rules wrote:a witchfire power must roll To Hit, unless it is[sic] has the Blast special rule, in which case it scatters as described in the Blast special rule, or it is a Template weapon, which hit automatically.

Couldn't be more clear.

Psychic Shriek is neither a Blast nor Template; it must roll to hit.

How many rolls do you make? Pages and para.
What ties a success to the rest of the shriek resolution?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Psychic Shriek is neither a Blast nor Template; it must roll to hit.

How many rolls do you make? Pages and para.
What ties a success to the rest of the shriek resolution?

I didn't claim that the rules nor I knew the answers to those questions. The rules are pretty clear that it must roll to hit though.

HIWPI is a single roll to hit with the models appropriate BS after psychic test, before effects, but I wouldn't say the RAW is clear on that aspect.

Do you play that a miss causes you to stop resolving the power, and is that rules based?

Why dont you just link the last thread rather than going on again Nos?

The only place your going to run into someone who says that a witchfire works even if you fail a roll to hit is here on dakka.

Casuals don't play it that way, and none of the bigger tournaments rule it like that either.

 BarBoBot wrote:
The only place your going to run into someone who says that a witchfire works even if you fail a roll to hit is here on dakka.

Casuals don't play it that way, and none of the bigger tournaments rule it like that either.

Psychic Shriek has no profile, so we do not know how many dice we roll to hit.

Not that hitting or missing does anything for Psychic shriek...

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Do you play that a miss causes you to stop resolving the power, and is that rules based?

Yes and not directly.

How to use Psychic Shriek according to RAW:
1. Declare you are manifesting Psychick Shriek with your psyker
2. Declare target
3. Make your psychic test
3a. If at least two 6s are rolled immediately resolve Perils on the psyker
4. Target unit may attempt to Deny the Witch
5. Provided you successfully made your psychic test and your opponent failed to Deny the Witch, roll 0d6 to hit
6. Scrutinise the table where the 0 dice landed
7. Resolve Psychic Shriek according to its entry

witchfires state you must roll to hit,

roll to hit, if you hit resolve the power.

some people like to pretend that rolling to hit does not matter, and they would be wrong, resolving a weapons effects on hit, using the weapons profile matters, just as resolving a witchfires profile is affected by the hit or miss.

to assume this roll to hit does not matter, or can be done on 0 dice, is to assume you can do that kind of stuff with shooting dice or CC dice.

some people are confused because it doesnt have a profile exactly like a weapon so are confused as to how many dice to roll.

thats because they are having trouble subbing in the rules/profile as written for this power, instead of a normal weapon profile, but the rules state that many witch fires have similar profiles to weapons, which means some will have totally different profiles.

thankfully, the rules tell us to roll to hit, and gives us a profile that tells us how to resolve that power once we have hit, as the power does in fact have a profile, just not one identical to normal weapons as there is no str or ap value.

once we have hit, and we know its one dice because we are told that in the case of multiple shots the profile will include a # greater then 1 after the weapon type (we have neither that # or a weapon type for this powers profile, pg 40) ,

since rolling 0 dice is not in fact rolling to hit, and we are not told to roll more then one, that leaves rolling a negative # of dice (impossible, and technically the same as rolling 0 dice) or rolling 1.

we resolve the powers rules according to its profile about causing wounds in the place of standard weapon profiles that compare str and T values, we roll 3d6 and compare to the LD ect as this witchfires specific profile's rules say.

TLDR
the answer is that yes, it rolls to hit, yes only once, if you hit then you resolve the power, if you miss you do not.

 easysauce wrote:
witchfires state you must roll to hit,

roll to hit, if you hit resolve the power.

Please quote a rule that states you must hit to resolve Psychic Shriek.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
witchfires state you must roll to hit,

roll to hit, if you hit resolve the power.

Please quote a rule that states you must hit to resolve Psychic Shriek.

pg 27 clearly states witchfires must roll to hit like shooting weapons and follow template blast shooting rules. Shooting rules state you only resolve the weapons profile into wounds on a sucessfull hit.

you must hit to resolve weapon profiles, even if they are special profiles with different rules in stead of STR and AP to resolve the wounds that hit would cause.

you have 0 RAW backing to resolve any shooting attack, regardless of how special its profile, without a hit first.

hits from weapons have profiles, as does this power. just because its an extra special fancy profile with different WOUND resolution rules, ap rules, does not ignore the requirement to hit.

quote the rule that states hits do not matter

you have also stated that rolling 0 dice counts as rolling to hit, which is just wrong, you obviously know the requirment to hit is written down,


you have no rules basis for resolving wounds from shooting without a hit.



in case you didnt notice, GW actually states now that not all witchfires will follow the standard range STR AP profile,

this one has a profile of range 18" str N/A ap N/A and its own rules for wounds and saves.

"Assuming the Psychic test was passed and the enemy did not negate it with a successful Deny the Witch test, the power has been successfully manifested. Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry."

"Psychic Shriek is a witchfire power with a range of 18". Roll 3D6 and subtract the target’s Leadership – the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result. Armour and cover saves cannot be taken against Wounds caused by Psychic Shriek."

Find a rule that stops Psychic Shriek from resolving if the mandatory to-hit roll misses.

The intention here was probably to substitute the 3D6 roll as the to-hit roll, but GW's amazingly competent writers have failed to notice the discrepancy between the required roll to hit and Psychic Shriek's lack of instruction to roll to hit.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
witchfires state you must roll to hit,

roll to hit, if you hit resolve the power.

Please quote a rule that states you must hit to resolve Psychic Shriek.

List a tourney bigger than 10 guys that rules it like that.

Casuals certainly don't play it like that.

That leaves rules lawyers and WAAC players.

Oh no, not again

you must roll to hit, but you didn't roll to hit, the game breaks and you might as well end the game and move on.

It's a shame with how they tried to clarify other issues they forgot the psychic ones.

 BarBoBot wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
witchfires state you must roll to hit,

roll to hit, if you hit resolve the power.

Please quote a rule that states you must hit to resolve Psychic Shriek.

List a tourney bigger than 10 guys that rules it like that.

Casuals certainly don't play it like that.

That leaves rules lawyers and WAAC players.

That's an interesting false appeal to authority you've got there.
This is a rules as written argument, please take your "how I would play it" post elsewhere.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
"Assuming the Psychic test was passed and the enemy did not negate it with a successful Deny the Witch test, the power has been successfully manifested. Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry."

"Psychic Shriek is a witchfire power with a range of 18". Roll 3D6 and subtract the target’s Leadership – the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result. Armour and cover saves cannot be taken against Wounds caused by Psychic Shriek."

Find a rule that stops Psychic Shriek from resolving if the mandatory to-hit roll misses.

The intention here was probably to substitute the 3D6 roll as the to-hit roll, but GW's amazingly competent writers have failed to notice the discrepancy between the required roll to hit and Psychic Shriek's lack of instruction to roll to hit.

so it says "roll to hit" in a bolters profile then too?

oh wait, no it doesnt, weapon profiles show you how WOUNDS are resolved, not hits.

we are told to roll to hit and work it out like weapons, to claim you can resolve a psychic SHOOTING attacks wounds according profile without a hit, breaks all the same rules as resolving a bolt guns wounds according to its profile without a hit.

you claim that "rolling 0 dice to hit counts as rolling to hit" showing you are either trolling, or will fully ignoring and making up rules.

"missing doesnt mean my bolter cannot wound you" is also how bolters work under your interpretation, as bolters follow the same to hit rules as witchfires.

roll to hit, on hit, resolve wounds according to profile.


page 26 also tells us that we are to "apply any TARGETING requirements other restrictions that apply for its type"

pg 27 also goes into specific types of witchfires and their specific "targeting restrictions" dealing with beams novas ect and their lack of targeting restriction to roll to hit.

check range, roll to hit target, being the specific restrictions on witchfires

Princeraven the OP said in his second post that this thread was not meant to be a rules debate... So why are you claiming otherwise?

 easysauce wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
"Assuming the Psychic test was passed and the enemy did not negate it with a successful Deny the Witch test, the power has been successfully manifested. Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry."

"Psychic Shriek is a witchfire power with a range of 18". Roll 3D6 and subtract the target’s Leadership – the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result. Armour and cover saves cannot be taken against Wounds caused by Psychic Shriek."

Find a rule that stops Psychic Shriek from resolving if the mandatory to-hit roll misses.

The intention here was probably to substitute the 3D6 roll as the to-hit roll, but GW's amazingly competent writers have failed to notice the discrepancy between the required roll to hit and Psychic Shriek's lack of instruction to roll to hit.

so it says "roll to hit" in a bolters profile then too?

oh wait, no it doesnt, weapon profiles show you how WOUNDS are resolved, not hits.

A Bolter is a Rapid Fire weapon, Rapid Fire tells you how many rolls to hit you make.

we are told to roll to hit and work it out like weapons, to claim you can resolve a psychic SHOOTING attacks wounds according profile without a hit, breaks all the same rules as resolving a bolt guns wounds according to its profile without a hit.

you claim that "rolling 0 dice to hit counts as rolling to hit" showing you are either trolling, or will fully ignoring and making up rules.

Psychic Shriek does not tell you to roll any dice to hit, but a to-hit roll is required, therefore in order to follow both rules you must roll 0 dice to hit.

"missing doesnt mean my bolter cannot wound you" is also how bolters work under your interpretation, as bolters follow the same to hit rules as witchfires.

roll to hit, on hit, resolve wounds according to profile.

A shooting attack missing does indeed stop you from causing the wound according to the basic shooting rules, but the only things listed in the rulebook that can stop a psychic power from resolving are Denying the Witch and failing the psychic test.

page 26 also tells us that we are to "apply any TARGETING requirements other restrictions that apply for its type"

pg 27 also goes into specific types of witchfires and their specific "targeting restrictions" dealing with beams novas ect and their lack of targeting restriction to roll to hit.

check range, roll to hit target, being the specific restrictions on witchfires

Right, so the target has to be an unengaged enemy unit the psyker has line of sight to within 18".
What has that got to do with rolling to hit?

 BarBoBot wrote:
Princeraven the OP said in his second post that this thread was not meant to be a rules debate... So why are you claiming otherwise?

I must have been confused by the OP asking in the very first post the questions I am answering:
"So the questions still remain over how many dice need to be rolled (if any), and whether a failed roll has any bearing on whether the power can still be resolved. "

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
"Assuming the Psychic test was passed and the enemy did not negate it with a successful Deny the Witch test, the power has been successfully manifested. Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry."

"Psychic Shriek is a witchfire power with a range of 18". Roll 3D6 and subtract the target’s Leadership – the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result. Armour and cover saves cannot be taken against Wounds caused by Psychic Shriek."

Find a rule that stops Psychic Shriek from resolving if the mandatory to-hit roll misses.

The intention here was probably to substitute the 3D6 roll as the to-hit roll, but GW's amazingly competent writers have failed to notice the discrepancy between the required roll to hit and Psychic Shriek's lack of instruction to roll to hit.

so it says "roll to hit" in a bolters profile then too?

oh wait, no it doesnt, weapon profiles show you how WOUNDS are resolved, not hits.

A Bolter is a Rapid Fire weapon, Rapid Fire tells you how many rolls to hit you make.

we are told to roll to hit and work it out like weapons, to claim you can resolve a psychic SHOOTING attacks wounds according profile without a hit, breaks all the same rules as resolving a bolt guns wounds according to its profile without a hit.

you claim that "rolling 0 dice to hit counts as rolling to hit" showing you are either trolling, or will fully ignoring and making up rules.

Psychic Shriek does not tell you to roll any dice to hit, but a to-hit roll is required, therefore in order to follow both rules you must roll 0 dice to hit.

"missing doesnt mean my bolter cannot wound you" is also how bolters work under your interpretation, as bolters follow the same to hit rules as witchfires.

roll to hit, on hit, resolve wounds according to profile.

A shooting attack missing does indeed stop you from causing the wound according to the basic shooting rules, but the only things listed in the rulebook that can stop a psychic power from resolving are Denying the Witch and failing the psychic test.

page 26 also tells us that we are to "apply any TARGETING requirements other restrictions that apply for its type"

pg 27 also goes into specific types of witchfires and their specific "targeting restrictions" dealing with beams novas ect and their lack of targeting restriction to roll to hit.

check range, roll to hit target, being the specific restrictions on witchfires

Right, so the target has to be an unengaged enemy unit the psyker has line of sight to within 18".
What has that got to do with rolling to hit?

 BarBoBot wrote:
Princeraven the OP said in his second post that this thread was not meant to be a rules debate... So why are you claiming otherwise?

I must have been confused by the OP asking in the very first post the questions I am answering:
"So the questions still remain over how many dice need to be rolled (if any), and whether a failed roll has any bearing on whether the power can still be resolved. "

Nice logic... but the shooting phase instructions tell you: "To determine if the firing model has hit its target, roll a d6 for each shot that is in range. Most models only get to fire one shot, however, some weapons are capable of firing more than once..."

Thus, rolling to hit HAS to involve at least 1d6, which hits according to your ballistic skill. Psychic shriek starts by telling us it is a witchfire with a range of 18". Thus we look up the rules for witchfire which confirm that you must roll to hit unless it is a blast or template. As Psychic shriek is not, we must roll to hit. Once you hit, the rest of the power can be resolved. If you don't hit, sucks to be you, you missed and did 3d6 - leadership to that shrub next to the guy you were shooting at.

Psychic Shriek does not fire any shots, it determines number of wounds inflicted through a different method, therefore to roll a d6 for each shot that is in range you must roll 0d6.

 easysauce wrote:
the answer is that yes, it rolls to hit, yes only once, if you hit then you resolve the power, if you miss you do not.

(Emphasis mine)

Where are you getting that from?

Why not roll 100 dice to hit?

Some rules to back up your argument would be great.

In absence of an actual die rolled on the table, have you Rolled To Hit? If a tree falls in a forest with no people...?

Claiming you automatically progress to the resolution of the power is something I'd like a page/reference on.

Aren't you just stuck on the requirement to ROLL something until you and your opponent agree how to solve this flaw in the rules?

sirlynchmob wrote:
Oh no, not again

you must roll to hit, but you didn't roll to hit, the game breaks and you might as well end the game and move on.

It's a shame with how they tried to clarify other issues they forgot the psychic ones.

Having read through the responses it has confirmed to me that the same situation exists as in 6th. It really is a shame they couldn't have just added a sentence to make things clear (one way or the other) for 7th edition considering the amount of queries/discussion/debate/argument there had been.

 Shandara wrote:
In absence of an actual die rolled on the table, have you Rolled To Hit? If a tree falls in a forest with no people...?

Claiming you automatically progress to the resolution of the power is something I'd like a page/reference on.

Here ya go: "Assuming the Psychic test was passed and the enemy did not negate it with a successful Deny the Witch test, the power has been successfully manifested. Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry."

Aren't you just stuck on the requirement to ROLL something until you and your opponent agree how to solve this flaw in the rules?

The last time it came up we just ruled it as the 3d6 replaces the to-hit and to-wound rolls and kept playing.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
the answer is that yes, it rolls to hit, yes only once, if you hit then you resolve the power, if you miss you do not.

(Emphasis mine)

Where are you getting that from?

Why not roll 100 dice to hit?

Some rules to back up your argument would be great.

Again "To determine if the firing model has hit its target, roll a d6 for each shot that is in range. Most models only get to fire one shot, however, some weapons are capable of firing more than once..." BRB pg 32 ROLL TO HIT.

That is you you roll to hit. Thus, unless a weapons specifies otherwise, you roll 1D6 to see if it hits. Witchfire powers state you roll to hit. Where is your rules permission to ignore this requirement?

Chance - nothing states how many dice is the default. That's where your claim falls apart.

It also falls apart when you realise you haven't provided a rule that links a successful to hit with continuing to resolve the power. There is such a line when rolling to wound, but nothing exists for rolling 3d6.

chanceafs wrote:
Again "To determine if the firing model has hit its target, roll a d6 for each shot that is in range. Most models only get to fire one shot, however, some weapons are capable of firing more than once..." BRB pg 32 ROLL TO HIT.

That is you you roll to hit. Thus, unless a weapons specifies otherwise, you roll 1D6 to see if it hits. Witchfire powers state you roll to hit. Where is your rules permission to ignore this requirement?

And how many shots does Psychic Shriek have?

Please provide a rules quote that states how many shots we get with Psychic Shriek.

Premise 1: "Just like when shooting a weapon...a witchfire power must roll To Hit..." (Psychic Phase, Witchfires)

Premise 2: "To determine if the firing model has hit its target, roll a D6 for each shot that is in range. Most models only get to fire one shot, however, some weapons are capable of firing more than once..." (Shooting Phase, Roll To Hit)

Premise 3: "Some shooting weapons fire multiple shots. Where this is the case, the number of shots a weapon fires is noted after its type." (Weapons, Number Of Shots)

Conclusion: witchfires must roll To Hit, just like when firing a weapon. While the second premise does not necessarily mean that you get one shot (i.e. dice rolled To Hit) by default, the third premise does say that in order to have multiple shots, the weapon must specifically say so. Therefore, we can prove that you cannot fire multiple shots, as you have no permission to do so.

You also cannot roll 0D6, as this does not satisfy the requirement To Hit. If you miss (or fail to roll To Hit), then you cannot satisfy the requirements of the first premise.

Therefore, you must successfully roll exactly 1D6 To Hit in order to satisfy all of these requirements and restrictions.

Thoughts? My Be'lakor model is happy to be proven wrong

 DeathReaper wrote:

chanceafs wrote:
Again "To determine if the firing model has hit its target, roll a d6 for each shot that is in range. Most models only get to fire one shot, however, some weapons are capable of firing more than once..." BRB pg 32 ROLL TO HIT.

That is you you roll to hit. Thus, unless a weapons specifies otherwise, you roll 1D6 to see if it hits. Witchfire powers state you roll to hit. Where is your rules permission to ignore this requirement?

And how many shots does Psychic Shriek have?

Please provide a rules quote that states how many shots we get with Psychic Shriek.

I just did... a To Hit Roll involves 1 shot unless specified otherwise. Does Psychic Shriek specify otherwise? No.

chanceafs wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

chanceafs wrote:
Again "To determine if the firing model has hit its target, roll a d6 for each shot that is in range. Most models only get to fire one shot, however, some weapons are capable of firing more than once..." BRB pg 32 ROLL TO HIT.

That is you you roll to hit. Thus, unless a weapons specifies otherwise, you roll 1D6 to see if it hits. Witchfire powers state you roll to hit. Where is your rules permission to ignore this requirement?

And how many shots does Psychic Shriek have?

Please provide a rules quote that states how many shots we get with Psychic Shriek.

I just did... a To Hit Roll involves 1 shot unless specified otherwise. Does Psychic Shriek specify otherwise? No.

'Most models only get to fire one shot' doesn't mean 'involves 1 shot unless specified otherwise'

They are completely different.

It is just a throw-away sentence that says most only have 1 shot which I don't even know if that is true.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 Shandara wrote:
In absence of an actual die rolled on the table, have you Rolled To Hit? If a tree falls in a forest with no people...?

Claiming you automatically progress to the resolution of the power is something I'd like a page/reference on.

Here ya go: "Assuming the Psychic test was passed and the enemy did not negate it with a successful Deny the Witch test, the power has been successfully manifested. Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry."

Aren't you just stuck on the requirement to ROLL something until you and your opponent agree how to solve this flaw in the rules?

The last time it came up we just ruled it as the 3d6 replaces the to-hit and to-wound rolls and kept playing.

I did not mean that. You can not skip the To Hit Roll, even if it does not have any effect. And since there is no way to complete the To Hit roll currently .. you are stuck.

And if you ruled it one way, we can also just rule it that you roll 1 dice for your To Hit roll... which would be more like regular Witchfires with a normal weapon profile.

*makes a rolling motion with 0 dice in hand* - Oh look, I just figured out how to complete the to hit roll.

It would be more like regular witchfires, but Psychic Shriek is clearly not a regular witchfire, and we decided on the ruling closer to RAW.

RAW - Psychic Shriek as a power is broken and is impossible to resolve.

RAI - Who knows?

HIWPI - The Ld roll is more akin to a "to Wound" roll, thus I would substitute it for that step. "Most Weapons fire one shot..." would seem to indicate 1 shot is default, though it is not definitive. Therefore 1 roll to hit at firers BS and if hit, resolve full effects of power. If not, nothing.

I disagree, Psychic Shriek can definitely be resolved according to RAW, just in a pretty non-intuitive way.

Seriously don't understand why this is still in debate. The power, if manifested will resolve, but you still have to roll to hit, there is no flaw in this interpretation.

Witchfire spells are handled just like shooting attacks unless it uses a template, it's very explicit in how they are used.

Psychic Shriek does not use a template, therefore you need to roll to hit.

The 3d6 mentioned on the spell is to determine how many models are wounded in the unit, not how many are hit.

Example: I roll 3d6 and get 7 (horrible roll) targeting a unit of 10 tactical marines, you would have to assign 7 wounds, but before this roll even happens, I would have to roll to hit to see if I even hit this unit.

Psyker powers can miss people, assuming they are automatically going to hit is a little short-sighted.

Read the power again, even says the 3d6 are for wounds, not for hits, what makes you think you can replace this for a to-hit to when the rules specifically state that you must roll to hit for Witchfire powers?

I've been playing less than a month and this answer is so obvious its sad you're arguing about it

 PrinceRaven wrote:
*makes a rolling motion with 0 dice in hand* - Oh look, I just figured out how to complete the to hit roll.

It would be more like regular witchfires, but Psychic Shriek is clearly not a regular witchfire, and we decided on the ruling closer to RAW.

so still no RAW backing for your baseless, and trolling, assertations that rolling 0 dice to hit counts as rolling to hit?

You have the exact same permission to roll 0 dice to hit with a bolter.

pretty sad, especially since several posters have posted all the relevent rules,

and GW has in fact written down everything we need to know about this particular power.

Unfortunatly, you like to troll, or just dont want to play by RAW, as shreck is RAW very much a normal witch fire, and its PROFILE contains all the information we need to check range, roll to hit, and resolve wounds, just like every other shooting profile in the game does.

 easysauce wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
*makes a rolling motion with 0 dice in hand* - Oh look, I just figured out how to complete the to hit roll.

It would be more like regular witchfires, but Psychic Shriek is clearly not a regular witchfire, and we decided on the ruling closer to RAW.

so still no RAW backing for your baseless, and trolling, assertations that rolling 0 dice to hit counts as rolling to hit?

You have the exact same permission to roll 0 dice to hit with a bolter.

pretty sad, especially since several posters have posted all the relevent rules,

and GW has in fact written down everything we need to know about this particular power.

Unfortunatly, you like to troll, or just dont want to play by RAW, as shreck is RAW very much a normal witch fire, and its PROFILE contains all the information we need to check range, roll to hit, and resolve wounds, just like every other shooting profile in the game does.

The way this was handled the other day when I played at my local gw shop, we rolled to hit just like a gun with one dice as you are targeting one "whole" unit and went from there, this didn't seem to upset anybody at the table or in the shop.

Rolling 0 dice to hit is flat out cheating, rolling more than one is pointless as one is clearly enough. Though it does help if you think of it with a little bit of logic. You're sending out a pulse of Psychic energy, not targeting an individual unit, but a group, you're either gonna hit them all or miss them all, but there are always gonna be those who try to bend the rules to their favor.

Zodiark wrote:

Rolling 0 dice to hit is flat out cheating, rolling more than one is pointless as one is clearly enough. Though it does help if you think of it with a little bit of logic. You're sending out a pulse of Psychic energy, not targeting an individual unit, but a group, you're either gonna hit them all or miss them all, but there are always gonna be those who try to bend the rules to their favor.

So you are using the logic for an area attack (lets call that area, a template), yet not the rules for it?

IMO, it's a mess. You don't have enough rules to complete it as a shooting attack (you score 1 hit for each success on the to hit roll, but that isn't how the power works).
Saying it isn't a shooting attack makes my flat out rhinos full of psykers happy.

The best solution is to FAQ it to be a Malediction.

-Matt

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

Rolling 0 dice to hit is flat out cheating, rolling more than one is pointless as one is clearly enough. Though it does help if you think of it with a little bit of logic. You're sending out a pulse of Psychic energy, not targeting an individual unit, but a group, you're either gonna hit them all or miss them all, but there are always gonna be those who try to bend the rules to their favor.

So you are using the logic for an area attack (lets call that area, a template), yet not the rules for it?

IMO, it's a mess. You don't have enough rules to complete it as a shooting attack (you score 1 hit for each success on the to hit roll, but that isn't how the power works).
Saying it isn't a shooting attack makes my flat out rhinos full of psykers happy.

The best solution is to FAQ it to be a Malediction.

-Matt

But it is a shooting attack, I never said it wasn't. It's a single shot shooting attack that hits an entire unit. Seriously, I don't understand how you guys are failing so hard to grasp this concept. The rules are incredibly clear and did not leave room for interpretation. Obviously this has been an issue for awhile which I find interesting because if it was a mistake in intent, don't you think it would have been FAQ'd by now? I've seen other things get FAQ'd rather quickly when it became an issue, but not this.

That alone should tell you something. RAW states it's a Shooting attack and you must roll To-Hit. If you do not, you are cheating, plain and simple.

Zodiark wrote:
Psychic Shriek does not use a template, therefore you need to roll to hit.

How many dice? We're told to look at the profile to determine that - where is Psychic Shriek's profile?

Read the power again, even says the 3d6 are for wounds, not for hits, what makes you think you can replace this for a to-hit to when the rules specifically state that you must roll to hit for Witchfire powers?

Because we're told that, per the Psychic rules, once we manifest the power we have permission to resolve the power according to its entry.
Pray, tell me where in the entry for Psychic Shriek it requires a to hit roll to be passed?

Since you may not have the 7th edition book yet I'll make it easy on you. Here's the text of the power.

Psychic Shriek is a witchfire power with a range of 18". Roll 3D6 and subtract the target’s Leadership – the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result. Armour and cover saves cannot be taken against Wounds caused by Psychic Shriek.

I've manifested it. I therefore have permission to resolve it according to its entry - correct?
According to the entry I have permission to roll 3d6 and subtract the target's Leadership. Correct?

chanceafs wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

chanceafs wrote:
Again "To determine if the firing model has hit its target, roll a d6 for each shot that is in range. Most models only get to fire one shot, however, some weapons are capable of firing more than once..." BRB pg 32 ROLL TO HIT.

That is you you roll to hit. Thus, unless a weapons specifies otherwise, you roll 1D6 to see if it hits. Witchfire powers state you roll to hit. Where is your rules permission to ignore this requirement?

And how many shots does Psychic Shriek have?

Please provide a rules quote that states how many shots we get with Psychic Shriek.

I just did... a To Hit Roll involves 1 shot unless specified otherwise. Does Psychic Shriek specify otherwise? No.

Do you have a page number that says you only roll once unless specified otherwise?

I have not seen anything posted that says you only roll once unless specified otherwise.

So RAW ends up as basically every time you use this power in a game and there is a rules dispute you have to roll off as described under "the most important rule" and play it that way for the rest of the game.

Or some common sense could be applied, roll to hit once then act accordingly.

Or both players pack up and go home.

We done here yet?

Witchfire powers "must roll To Hit." and the power doesn't say that it automatically hit so it "must roll To Hit." To Hit is determined by the shooters BS.

The real question is, how many shots. One power, one test, one shot. That's how I play it.

 easysauce wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
*makes a rolling motion with 0 dice in hand* - Oh look, I just figured out how to complete the to hit roll.

It would be more like regular witchfires, but Psychic Shriek is clearly not a regular witchfire, and we decided on the ruling closer to RAW.

so still no RAW backing for your baseless, and trolling, assertations that rolling 0 dice to hit counts as rolling to hit?

Rolling to hit = rolling a number of dice to determine how many hits are caused, 0d6 = a number of dice.
I have quoted the relevant rules supporting my position, I'm sorry I have no control over your ability to read them.

You have the exact same permission to roll 0 dice to hit with a bolter.

You very much do not, which would be clear if you actually bothered to read my argument. Bolters are a Rapid Fire weapon, I suggest reading the Rapid Fire rules if you want to know how many dice you roll to hit with a bolter.

pretty sad, especially since several posters have posted all the relevent rules,

and GW has in fact written down everything we need to know about this particular power.

Unfortunatly, you like to troll, or just dont want to play by RAW, as shreck is RAW very much a normal witch fire, and its PROFILE contains all the information we need to check range, roll to hit, and resolve wounds, just like every other shooting profile in the game does.

So you blatantly ignore my argument, dismissing it without actually addressing my points at all, then accuse ME of trolling? I believe there's a saying that would be relevant here, something about stones and glass houses...

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
Psychic Shriek does not use a template, therefore you need to roll to hit.

How many dice? We're told to look at the profile to determine that - where is Psychic Shriek's profile?

Read the power again, even says the 3d6 are for wounds, not for hits, what makes you think you can replace this for a to-hit to when the rules specifically state that you must roll to hit for Witchfire powers?

Because we're told that, per the Psychic rules, once we manifest the power we have permission to resolve the power according to its entry.
Pray, tell me where in the entry for Psychic Shriek it requires a to hit roll to be passed?

Since you may not have the 7th edition book yet I'll make it easy on you. Here's the text of the power.

Psychic Shriek is a witchfire power with a range of 18". Roll 3D6 and subtract the target’s Leadership – the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result. Armour and cover saves cannot be taken against Wounds caused by Psychic Shriek.

I've manifested it. I therefore have permission to resolve it according to its entry - correct?
According to the entry I have permission to roll 3d6 and subtract the target's Leadership. Correct?

Yeah I've decided I really don't like you, you're just a troll with a big stick poking you where it's not nice.

Anyway.

I have the 7th RB and it SPECIFICALLY states that a WITCHFIRE power counts as a SHOOTING attack and you MUST ROLL TO HIT. (I debated making these words bigger for you so you understand better)

I also have the Psyker cards that list all its info on it. When you roll 3d6 this is strictly to WOUND, not to hit.

As for how to determine a shooting attack, if you really don't know this you shouldn't be talking here.

If you READ the BRB for 6th or 7th edition, take your pick, it says the same thing, you'll find that you do indeed need to roll to hit. When rolling to hit you look at the shooters BS skill, this is so obvious it needs no further comment.

It's a one shot skill, why would you roll more than one dice? Common sense and logic crushes your entire post


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dg3263827 wrote:
Witchfire powers "must roll To Hit." and the power doesn't say that it automatically hit so it "must roll To Hit." To Hit is determined by the shooters BS.

The real question is, how many shots. One power, one test, one shot. That's how I play it.

This exactly is how it is meant to be played. Why so many are too inept to understand I'll never know. It is a very basic concept and understanding.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

stripeydave wrote:
So RAW ends up as basically every time you use this power in a game and there is a rules dispute you have to roll off as described under "the most important rule" and play it that way for the rest of the game.

Or some common sense could be applied, roll to hit once then act accordingly.

Or both players pack up and go home.

We done here yet?

Not done here yet, they'll argue about it for months and months while those with common sense will move on and play.

 dg3263827 wrote:
Witchfire powers "must roll To Hit." and the power doesn't say that it automatically hit so it "must roll To Hit." To Hit is determined by the shooters BS.

The real question is, how many shots. One power, one test, one shot. That's how I play it.

That's how we locally have played it. Rules are explicitly clear that a 'to hit' roll must be made for a Witchfire. Psychic Shriek does not give specific guidance this rule is ignored, therefore, a 'to hit' roll is made. It could be debated how many, but it cannot be 0d6. It also states that many (witchfires) have profiles similar to ranged weapons. Note that this leaves room that there are Witchfires that do not have profiles similar to weapons and Psychic Shriek is a perfect example of this.

Refusing to make a 'to hit' roll and assuming Psychic Shriek (Witchfire) hits automatically clearly violates the rules laid forth. Debate how many d6 you should roll, but it simply cannot be 0.

Zodiark wrote:
Yeah I've decided I really don't like you, you're just a troll with a big stick poking you where it's not nice.

However unpleasant and condescending rigeld is, he does have a point.

Zodiark wrote:
This exactly is how it is meant to be played. Why so many are too inept to understand I'll never know. It is a very basic concept and understanding.

Personally I think that is true, however that is opinion.

Whatever, we end up with a power that (on the face of it) we don't know how many dice to roll to hit.
We can assume, but we are not told.
We also have a power that would seem to function (ie, wound) purely based on if it is manifested.

Add the two together = problems.

If any of us were to actually play each other, we would, in all probability, agree 1 dice to hit, miss and the power is completed, ie no wounds.

Stuff like this (in this rules discussion context) is as much as a moan about gw design as anything else.
"This is knackered, not my fault, deal with it as you will."

 fuusa wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
Yeah I've decided I really don't like you, you're just a troll with a big stick poking you where it's not nice.

However unpleasant and condescending rigeld is, he does have a point.

Zodiark wrote:
This exactly is how it is meant to be played. Why so many are too inept to understand I'll never know. It is a very basic concept and understanding.

Personally I think that is true, however that is opinion.

Whatever, we end up with a power that (on the face of it) we don't know how many dice to roll to hit.
We can assume, but we are not told.
We also have a power that would seem to function (ie, wound) purely based on if it is manifested.

Add the two together = problems.

If any of us were to actually play each other, we would, in all probability, agree 1 dice to hit, miss and the power is completed, ie no wounds.

Stuff like this (in this rules discussion context) is as much as a moan about gw design as anything else.
"This is knackered, not my fault, deal with it as you will."

His point is more a complication in reading comprehension. The rules are indeed quite clear and maybe a fault in GW's own use of wording in the text which I have seen a lot of, either way though, the wording for the power has it as a shooting attack and shooting attacks are solved a certain way, the rest is obvious.

The how many shots could be an issue but really it isn't, unless stated otherwise on a weapon or a special rule for a weapon, you get one shot. Or are we going to argue how many shots a Bolt Pistol gets now? It doesn't state on the weapons profile, but it is something we all know right?

The issue is it does state with a bolt pistol. Pistol sub-type states one shot. Psychic Shriek doesn't mention how many rolls are being made to hit. Yes, Raven is quite possibly being obtuse (not saying he is), but he does raise a valid point. My group would just agree or roll on it-it becomes an issue in pick up games.

Of course, all these problems could be solved if GW had a rules complaints department.

Farseer Anath'lan wrote:
The issue is it does state with a bolt pistol. Pistol sub-type states one shot. Psychic Shriek doesn't mention how many rolls are being made to hit. Yes, Rigeld is quite possibly being obtuse (not saying he is), but he does raise a valid point. My group would just agree or roll on it-it becomes an issue in pick up games.

Of course, all these problems could be solved if GW had a rules complaints department.

Rolling for it is another good idea, usually do this with my friends for any issue we can't agree on, but this to our play group and even my LGS is an obvious answer which is why this dispute is frustrating. I can understand if the wording was vague but it isn't, it's very explicit.

Zodiark wrote:
His point is more a complication in reading comprehension. The rules are indeed quite clear and maybe a fault in GW's own use of wording in the text which I have seen a lot of, either way though, the wording for the power has it as a shooting attack and shooting attacks are solved a certain way, the rest is obvious.

Yes shooting attacks are "solved a certain way" but there is nothing telling us how many dice we need to roll to hit in the Psychic shriek power itself.

The how many shots could be an issue but really it isn't, unless stated otherwise on a weapon or a special rule for a weapon, you get one shot.

There is no actual rules that state this though, this is purely your assumption.

Or are we going to argue how many shots a Bolt Pistol gets now? It doesn't state on the weapons profile, but it is something we all know right?

Why would we argue that, there are clear rules telling us that Bolt Pistols get one shot...

"Pistols are effectively Assault 1 weapons." (Weapons section, Pistol Weapons subsection).

and of course "A model shooting an Assault weapon shoots the number of times indicated on its profile." (Weapons section, Assault weapons sub-section).

So clearly we fire 1 time with pistols because they are Assault 1 weapons and Assault 1 weapons fire 1 shot because that is the number of times indicated on its profile.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
His point is more a complication in reading comprehension. The rules are indeed quite clear and maybe a fault in GW's own use of wording in the text which I have seen a lot of, either way though, the wording for the power has it as a shooting attack and shooting attacks are solved a certain way, the rest is obvious.

Yes shooting attacks are "solved a certain way" but there is nothing telling us how many dice we need to roll to hit in the Psychic shriek power itself.

The how many shots could be an issue but really it isn't, unless stated otherwise on a weapon or a special rule for a weapon, you get one shot.

There is no actual rules that state this though, this is purely your assumption.

Or are we going to argue how many shots a Bolt Pistol gets now? It doesn't state on the weapons profile, but it is something we all know right?

Why would we argue that, there are clear rules telling us that Bolt Pistols get one shot...

"Pistols are effectively Assault 1 weapons." (Weapons section, Pistol Weapons subsection).

and of course "A model shooting an Assault weapon shoots the number of times indicated on its profile." (Weapons section, Assault weapons sub-section).

So clearly we fire 1 time with pistols because they are Assault 1 weapons and Assault 1 weapons fire 1 shot because that is the number of times indicated on its profile.

Yet this Power isn't obvious to you? Seriously?

Zodiark wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
His point is more a complication in reading comprehension. The rules are indeed quite clear and maybe a fault in GW's own use of wording in the text which I have seen a lot of, either way though, the wording for the power has it as a shooting attack and shooting attacks are solved a certain way, the rest is obvious.

Yes shooting attacks are "solved a certain way" but there is nothing telling us how many dice we need to roll to hit in the Psychic shriek power itself.

The how many shots could be an issue but really it isn't, unless stated otherwise on a weapon or a special rule for a weapon, you get one shot.

There is no actual rules that state this though, this is purely your assumption.

Or are we going to argue how many shots a Bolt Pistol gets now? It doesn't state on the weapons profile, but it is something we all know right?

Why would we argue that, there are clear rules telling us that Bolt Pistols get one shot...

"Pistols are effectively Assault 1 weapons." (Weapons section, Pistol Weapons subsection).

and of course "A model shooting an Assault weapon shoots the number of times indicated on its profile." (Weapons section, Assault weapons sub-section).

So clearly we fire 1 time with pistols because they are Assault 1 weapons and Assault 1 weapons fire 1 shot because that is the number of times indicated on its profile.

Yet this Power isn't obvious to you? Seriously?

I have not been able to find any actual rules that tell us how many dice we need to use to roll to hit with Psychic Shriek. So, no it is not obvious to me, because I do not see it in the rules anywhere.

Have you found any actual rules that tell us how many dice we need to roll to hit?

Zodiark wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I've manifested it. I therefore have permission to resolve it according to its entry - correct?
According to the entry I have permission to roll 3d6 and subtract the target's Leadership. Correct?

Yeah I've decided I really don't like you, you're just a troll with a big stick poking you where it's not nice.

Anyway.

I have the 7th RB and it SPECIFICALLY states that a WITCHFIRE power counts as a SHOOTING attack and you MUST ROLL TO HIT. (I debated making these words bigger for you so you understand better)

Shouting doesn't help at all - it's rude.
I don't dispute that at all. Did you actually read my post?

I also have the Psyker cards that list all its info on it. When you roll 3d6 this is strictly to WOUND, not to hit.

No, the 3d6 roll is not a to-wound roll. Not even close actually.

As for how to determine a shooting attack, if you really don't know this you shouldn't be talking here.

I do know how to determine the number of shots in a shooting attack - you look at the weapon's profile.
Please cite Psychic Shriek's profile.

If you READ the BRB for 6th or 7th edition, take your pick, it says the same thing, you'll find that you do indeed need to roll to hit. When rolling to hit you look at the shooters BS skill, this is so obvious it needs no further comment.

I don't dispute that and never have. It's also an irrelevant statement.

It's a one shot skill, why would you roll more than one dice? Common sense and logic crushes your entire post

You assumptions and HYWPI != RAW. I'm sure you can recognize that.

Zodiark wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
His point is more a complication in reading comprehension. The rules are indeed quite clear and maybe a fault in GW's own use of wording in the text which I have seen a lot of, either way though, the wording for the power has it as a shooting attack and shooting attacks are solved a certain way, the rest is obvious.

Yes shooting attacks are "solved a certain way" but there is nothing telling us how many dice we need to roll to hit in the Psychic shriek power itself.

The how many shots could be an issue but really it isn't, unless stated otherwise on a weapon or a special rule for a weapon, you get one shot.

There is no actual rules that state this though, this is purely your assumption.

Or are we going to argue how many shots a Bolt Pistol gets now? It doesn't state on the weapons profile, but it is something we all know right?

Why would we argue that, there are clear rules telling us that Bolt Pistols get one shot...

"Pistols are effectively Assault 1 weapons." (Weapons section, Pistol Weapons subsection).

and of course "A model shooting an Assault weapon shoots the number of times indicated on its profile." (Weapons section, Assault weapons sub-section).

So clearly we fire 1 time with pistols because they are Assault 1 weapons and Assault 1 weapons fire 1 shot because that is the number of times indicated on its profile.

Yet this Power isn't obvious to you? Seriously?

If it is so obvious, page and para for the profile of the power, as per the tenets of this forum.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
His point is more a complication in reading comprehension. The rules are indeed quite clear and maybe a fault in GW's own use of wording in the text which I have seen a lot of, either way though, the wording for the power has it as a shooting attack and shooting attacks are solved a certain way, the rest is obvious.

Yes shooting attacks are "solved a certain way" but there is nothing telling us how many dice we need to roll to hit in the Psychic shriek power itself.

The how many shots could be an issue but really it isn't, unless stated otherwise on a weapon or a special rule for a weapon, you get one shot.

There is no actual rules that state this though, this is purely your assumption.

Or are we going to argue how many shots a Bolt Pistol gets now? It doesn't state on the weapons profile, but it is something we all know right?

Why would we argue that, there are clear rules telling us that Bolt Pistols get one shot...

"Pistols are effectively Assault 1 weapons." (Weapons section, Pistol Weapons subsection).

and of course "A model shooting an Assault weapon shoots the number of times indicated on its profile." (Weapons section, Assault weapons sub-section).

So clearly we fire 1 time with pistols because they are Assault 1 weapons and Assault 1 weapons fire 1 shot because that is the number of times indicated on its profile.

Yet this Power isn't obvious to you? Seriously?

I have not been able to find any actual rules that tell us how many dice we need to use to roll to hit with Psychic Shriek. So, no it is not obvious to me, because I do not see it in the rules anywhere.

Have you found any actual rules that tell us how many dice we need to roll to hit?

No specific rule no, but common sense is in the name of the ability and the logic behind it. Psychic Shriek, singular, not plural, one shot deal. This is how it is interpreted everywhere I play, this could be different at other places I'll give you that. Idk, for me this is just obvious, unless it states otherwise, the power rolls to hit, unless it states otherwise, you get one shot, unless it states otherwise you roll one dice. The RB does a great job at being specific when it needs to be and vague when the answer is very obvious. Sure a specific ruling would fix this, but this is an issue that has been around awhile and GW is more than aware of it, yet no FAQ has been made on it. They even have the most recent FAQ for Psyker powers and there is no mention of it, why, because the answer is more than obvious. It's a single attack, so you get a single dice.

This may play out differently depending on where you play and who you play with, but even as a new player this to me was easily understood and needed no interpretation. I suggest you ask a GW employee and maybe a judge for a tournament if you can get ahold of one to confirm this is how it is, if you like, I'll give you the number to both of the GW stores near me as well as the other LGS I p[lay at where this is how we play and they can re-explain why this is how the power works.

But this seems to me an issue people will argue about for a long time. Just googling it I found one thread from last year and another from 2012 with people fighting about it back then and one of the players said it perfectly.

"Roll to hit with Witchfire (BS of psyker).
Roll to wound with 3d6 - leadership.
Apply wounds." (Rogueeyes, 2012)

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/461761.page

The lack of any specific ruling about more than one shot/dice being needed answers the question immediately. Every Shooting weapon has a number of shots and it tells you how much they can shoot, GW went through the trouble to do this so everyone would know. Maybe they should have wrote this down for Psychic Shriek so people would stop arguing about it, but I tend to think that the ruling was specific and obvious so they felt they did not need to do this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

No, the 3d6 roll is not a to-wound roll. Not even close actually.

Really, so you're not rolling 3d6 against the units LD in order to determine how many wounds the target suffers?

Zodiark wrote:

No, the 3d6 roll is not a to-wound roll. Not even close actually.

Really, so you're not rolling 3d6 against the units LD in order to determine how many wounds the target suffers?

No, you are.
But how is that similar to a to-wound roll, which is defined (using actual rules) as:

To determine whether a hit causes a telling amount of damage, compare the weapon’s Strength characteristic with the target’s Toughness characteristic using the To Wound chart below.

Do you ever reference the chart? What's the STR of Psychic Shriek?

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

No, the 3d6 roll is not a to-wound roll. Not even close actually.

Really, so you're not rolling 3d6 against the units LD in order to determine how many wounds the target suffers?

No, you are.
But how is that similar to a to-wound roll, which is defined (using actual rules) as:

To determine whether a hit causes a telling amount of damage, compare the weapon’s Strength characteristic with the target’s Toughness characteristic using the To Wound chart below.

Do you ever reference the chart? What's the STR of Psychic Shriek?

They're auto wounds so no need for a STR on it actually. Read the power man, the unit suffers wounds, meaning they take them, can't take armor or cover saves either.

Zodiark wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

No, the 3d6 roll is not a to-wound roll. Not even close actually.

Really, so you're not rolling 3d6 against the units LD in order to determine how many wounds the target suffers?

No, you are.
But how is that similar to a to-wound roll, which is defined (using actual rules) as:

To determine whether a hit causes a telling amount of damage, compare the weapon’s Strength characteristic with the target’s Toughness characteristic using the To Wound chart below.

Do you ever reference the chart? What's the STR of Psychic Shriek?

They're auto wounds so no need for a STR on it actually. Read the power man, the unit suffers wounds, meaning they take them, can't take armor or cover saves either.

... So you agree it's not a Roll To Wound as defined by the BRB?

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

No, the 3d6 roll is not a to-wound roll. Not even close actually.

Really, so you're not rolling 3d6 against the units LD in order to determine how many wounds the target suffers?

No, you are.
But how is that similar to a to-wound roll, which is defined (using actual rules) as:

To determine whether a hit causes a telling amount of damage, compare the weapon’s Strength characteristic with the target’s Toughness characteristic using the To Wound chart below.

Do you ever reference the chart? What's the STR of Psychic Shriek?

They're auto wounds so no need for a STR on it actually. Read the power man, the unit suffers wounds, meaning they take them, can't take armor or cover saves either.

... So you agree it's not a Roll To Wound as defined by the BRB?

You are rolling to see how many wounds are applied are you not? You are not doing them the same way as the BRB because they are AUTOMATICALLY wounding. The same way you would not roll to hit on any shooting attacks that were auto-hit

Zodiark wrote:
You are rolling to see how many wounds are applied are you not? You are not doing them the same way as the BRB because they are AUTOMATICALLY wounding. The same way you would not roll to hit on any shooting attacks that were auto-hit

Right - you don't make a To-Hit roll if you auto hit. So you're not making a To-Wound roll since you auto wound.

As long as we're clear on that - since you disagreed before.

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
You are rolling to see how many wounds are applied are you not? You are not doing them the same way as the BRB because they are AUTOMATICALLY wounding. The same way you would not roll to hit on any shooting attacks that were auto-hit

Right - you don't make a To-Hit roll if you auto hit. So you're not making a To-Wound roll since you auto wound.

As long as we're clear on that - since you disagreed before.

Where did I disagree lol. I said you are rolling To-Wound, you assumed I was referring to the To-Wound listed in the BRB. I wasn't. You roll 3d6 against the targets LD and apply wounds there, said it like 3 times in this thread, read more

Zodiark wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
You are rolling to see how many wounds are applied are you not? You are not doing them the same way as the BRB because they are AUTOMATICALLY wounding. The same way you would not roll to hit on any shooting attacks that were auto-hit

Right - you don't make a To-Hit roll if you auto hit. So you're not making a To-Wound roll since you auto wound.

As long as we're clear on that - since you disagreed before.

Where did I disagree lol. I said you are rolling To-Wound, you assumed I was referring to the To-Wound listed in the BRB. I wasn't. You roll 3d6 against the targets LD and apply wounds there, said it like 3 times in this thread, read more

Zodiark wrote:

No, the 3d6 roll is not a to-wound roll. Not even close actually.

Really, so you're not rolling 3d6 against the units LD in order to determine how many wounds the target suffers?

That's where you disagreed. I said it wasn't a to-wound roll. You responded, questioning my statement. That's a disagreement.
I made no assumptions - words mean things. In the case of 40k, "to-wound roll" refers to using the table in the BRB.

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
You are rolling to see how many wounds are applied are you not? You are not doing them the same way as the BRB because they are AUTOMATICALLY wounding. The same way you would not roll to hit on any shooting attacks that were auto-hit

Right - you don't make a To-Hit roll if you auto hit. So you're not making a To-Wound roll since you auto wound.

As long as we're clear on that - since you disagreed before.

Where did I disagree lol. I said you are rolling To-Wound, you assumed I was referring to the To-Wound listed in the BRB. I wasn't. You roll 3d6 against the targets LD and apply wounds there, said it like 3 times in this thread, read more

Zodiark wrote:

No, the 3d6 roll is not a to-wound roll. Not even close actually.

Really, so you're not rolling 3d6 against the units LD in order to determine how many wounds the target suffers?

That's where you disagreed. I said it wasn't a to-wound roll. You responded, questioning my statement. That's a disagreement.
I made no assumptions - words mean things. In the case of 40k, "to-wound roll" refers to using the table in the BRB.

Just as I thought, we're arguing semantics and you're arguing for the sake of argument. I'm done with this thread, nothing is going to be solved anytime soon, going on a minimum of 4+ years of pointless arguing on an obvious rule.

Zodiark wrote:
Just as I thought, we're arguing semantics and you're arguing for the sake of argument. I'm done with this thread, nothing is going to be solved anytime soon, going on a minimum of 4+ years of pointless arguing on an obvious rule.

Semantics when I say words mean things?

Yellow pumpernickel monkey kangaroo squash. Pinto beans transmission.

Does rolling 0 dice count as having rolled to hit?

An interesting new thread for Nos, Rig, and the rest of them to take pride in the rage of others.

I don't think the last one had people saying "rolling 0 dice" is still rolling.


That being said, every major tournament and every LGS I've been too has ruled you roll one dice to hit, or simply do not roll at all. NONE have ruled, you roll and ignore the outcome.

Would like to see the results of a neutrally-worded poll as to which interpretation people think is correct. I don't think I can manage it though, as my own opinion is pretty strongly decided. Anyone want to give it a go?

Is anyone going to read my post, where I laid out a clear RAW argument for exactly one To Hit die being used for this power?

If you disagree, I'd like to see specifically what's wrong with my argument.

Zodiark - the point Rigeld was making is that To-Wound is a defined term in 40k. It is like target, or Psychic Test. It has a specified meaning, and a definition. The 3d6 test is NOT a to-wound; while it causes wounds, it does not follow the correct process to be classified as To-Wound

What you call "semantics" is more accurately described ad "what is quite important when discussing the written rules for a game"

Aka, you were wrong, and the point is clear.

 Cheexsta wrote:
Is anyone going to read my post, where I laid out a clear RAW argument for exactly one To Hit die being used for this power?

If you disagree, I'd like to see specifically what's wrong with my argument.

Your previous post makes the assumption that the effect is dependent on the roll to hit.

It also assumes that 1 is the default even though this is not stated anywhere. Your Premise 3 applies to shooting weapons, not Psychic powers.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Zodiark - the point Rigeld was making is that To-Wound is a defined term in 40k. It is like target, or Psychic Test. It has a specified meaning, and a definition. The 3d6 test is NOT a to-wound; while it causes wounds, it does not follow the correct process to be classified as To-Wound

What you call "semantics" is more accurately described ad "what is quite important when discussing the written rules for a game"

Aka, you were wrong, and the point is clear.

Are you applying wounds, yes or no? Yes

Are you rolling to see how many wounds to apply, yes or no? Yes.

Nuff said.

Also, confirmed directly from GW, you would role ONE dice To-Hit, not zero, not more than one. I will even provide the telephone number of the GW employee who can verify this if you like, not sure if this is against the rules or not so I will not immediately post it here.

/END Pointless Argument

Zodiark wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Zodiark - the point Rigeld was making is that To-Wound is a defined term in 40k. It is like target, or Psychic Test. It has a specified meaning, and a definition. The 3d6 test is NOT a to-wound; while it causes wounds, it does not follow the correct process to be classified as To-Wound

What you call "semantics" is more accurately described ad "what is quite important when discussing the written rules for a game"

Aka, you were wrong, and the point is clear.

Are you applying wounds, yes or no? Yes

Are you rolling to see how many wounds to apply, yes or no? Yes.

Nuff said.

Also, confirmed directly from GW, you would role ONE dice To-Hit, not zero, not more than one. I will even provide the telephone number of the GW employee who can verify this if you like, not sure if this is against the rules or not so I will not immediately post it here.

/END Pointless Argument

The customer service reps that answer the phones and e-mails have no idea what they are talking about.

If you call them twice with the same question, you will get three different answers.

Also: YMDC Rule #2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Games Workshop are easily spoofed and are notorious for being inconsistent and so should not be relied on.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

So This does not end the argument because you could get an answer from a hot dog vendor on the street and it would be just as valid.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Zodiark - the point Rigeld was making is that To-Wound is a defined term in 40k. It is like target, or Psychic Test. It has a specified meaning, and a definition. The 3d6 test is NOT a to-wound; while it causes wounds, it does not follow the correct process to be classified as To-Wound

What you call "semantics" is more accurately described ad "what is quite important when discussing the written rules for a game"

Aka, you were wrong, and the point is clear.

Are you applying wounds, yes or no? Yes

Are you rolling to see how many wounds to apply, yes or no? Yes.

Nuff said.

Also, confirmed directly from GW, you would role ONE dice To-Hit, not zero, not more than one. I will even provide the telephone number of the GW employee who can verify this if you like, not sure if this is against the rules or not so I will not immediately post it here.

/END Pointless Argument

The customer service reps that answer the phones and e-mails have no idea what they are talking about.

If you call them twice with the same question, you will get three different answers.

Also: YMDC Rule #2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Games Workshop are easily spoofed and are notorious for being inconsistent and so should not be relied on.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

Called my local GW store, both of them actually, both had the exact same answer as per the rule book and the statements I made earlier.

It's okay though, continue to argue about something that has been decided by a majority of players in the game, it's okay, you'll get somewhere eventually.

/END I'm out, got my answer, provided said answer, what you do with it is your own business

The problem with the tenets is that everything that isn't explicitly written is up to the opinions of others and if they see an answer they do not like or approve of, they do things like have pages of pointless arguing for years on end. Hence, talk to people whose job it is to enforce the rules of the game if there are any questions, i.e., judges or official employees you can see in person. If these people are unable to answer the question then you're sol. Otherwise, its just one opinion against another

Zodiark wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Zodiark - the point Rigeld was making is that To-Wound is a defined term in 40k. It is like target, or Psychic Test. It has a specified meaning, and a definition. The 3d6 test is NOT a to-wound; while it causes wounds, it does not follow the correct process to be classified as To-Wound

What you call "semantics" is more accurately described ad "what is quite important when discussing the written rules for a game"

Aka, you were wrong, and the point is clear.

Are you applying wounds, yes or no? Yes

Are you rolling to see how many wounds to apply, yes or no? Yes.

Nuff said.

Also, confirmed directly from GW, you would role ONE dice To-Hit, not zero, not more than one. I will even provide the telephone number of the GW employee who can verify this if you like, not sure if this is against the rules or not so I will not immediately post it here.

/END Pointless Argument

Sigh. You're still missing the point, even when it has been pointed out for you explicitly

Not "nuff said" - it is NOT a roll to -wound. That is not opinion but written fact. Your disagreement on this is entirely irrelevant and unimportant, as it is just an opinion, and one demonstrably incorrect at that. Please follow the tenets, or stop posting here

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Zodiark - the point Rigeld was making is that To-Wound is a defined term in 40k. It is like target, or Psychic Test. It has a specified meaning, and a definition. The 3d6 test is NOT a to-wound; while it causes wounds, it does not follow the correct process to be classified as To-Wound

What you call "semantics" is more accurately described ad "what is quite important when discussing the written rules for a game"

Aka, you were wrong, and the point is clear.

Are you applying wounds, yes or no? Yes

Are you rolling to see how many wounds to apply, yes or no? Yes.

Nuff said.

Also, confirmed directly from GW, you would role ONE dice To-Hit, not zero, not more than one. I will even provide the telephone number of the GW employee who can verify this if you like, not sure if this is against the rules or not so I will not immediately post it here.

/END Pointless Argument

Sigh. You're still missing the point, even when it has been pointed out for you explicitly

Not "nuff said" - it is NOT a roll to -wound. That is not opinion but written fact. Your disagreement on this is entirely irrelevant and unimportant, as it is just an opinion, and one demonstrably incorrect at that. Please follow the tenets, or stop posting here

I did not say that it was a roll to wound. I said it was a roll to APPLY wounds, either way, I'm done with this discussion, nobody is contributing anything meaningful to the discussion at large

When the rulebook says a roll to hit is required, I think it is incumbent upon the readers to infer that a failure on that roll means the power fails. Equally, it is incumbent to infer that rolling zero dice is not satisfying the requirement of a roll.

Therefore, the only real hole here is that the number of dice used for the roll is not listed. That problem would require an errata to fix. HIWPI is a single die as you are using a single instance of the power, therefore a single die.

Cheers

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Cheexsta wrote:
Is anyone going to read my post, where I laid out a clear RAW argument for exactly one To Hit die being used for this power?

If you disagree, I'd like to see specifically what's wrong with my argument.

Your previous post makes the assumption that the effect is dependent on the roll to hit.

It also assumes that 1 is the default even though this is not stated anywhere. Your Premise 3 applies to shooting weapons, not Psychic powers.

The roll to hit is a requirement of witchfire powers. There is no rule allowing you to apply the effect of something without being the rule's requirements.

Witchfire powers roll to hit exactly like as if with a firing weapon, as per premise 1, which why premise 3 is relevant. While 1 shot it's never explicitly stated anywhere premise 3 points out that multiple shots must be defined by the weapon.

No, no you did not. You disagreed when Rigeld stated it was not a roll to-wound, meaning you are claiming it is. It's also, from memory, now the third time you've claimed you're out. Sounding quite hollow.

It is also rich to claim no one has added anything, given your refusal to read either the rule book rules nor the forum rules.

So, as it is not a roll to-wound, what ties it to needing a successful roll to-hit! Page and para. If you again refuse / dissemble / lie about your argument, the assumption is you are conceding you don't actually have a rules argument, and as such your posts should be marked "HIWPI" so others are aware

 Dracos wrote:
When the rulebook says a roll to hit is required, I think it is incumbent upon the readers to infer that a failure on that roll means the power fails. Equally, it is incumbent to infer that rolling zero dice is not satisfying the requirement of a roll.

Therefore, the only real hole here is that the number of dice used for the roll is not listed. That problem would require an errata to fix. HIWPI is a single die as you are using a single instance of the power, therefore a single die.

Cheers

This is how it is played where I am at.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, no you did not. You disagreed when Rigeld stated it was not a roll to-wound, meaning you are claiming it is. It's also, from memory, now the third time you've claimed you're out. Sounding quite hollow.

It is also rich to claim no one has added anything, given your refusal to read either the rule book rules nor the forum rules.

So, as it is not a roll to-wound, what ties it to needing a successful roll to-hit! Page and para. If you again refuse / dissemble / lie about your argument, the assumption is you are conceding you don't actually have a rules argument, and as such your posts should be marked "HIWPI" so others are aware

Read my posts again. I clarified what was an error in his understanding of my statement.

The power itself as a witchfire REQUIRES a roll to hit unless STATED OTHERWISE, which it does not.

And the last couple of pages have mostly been pointless arguing.

I was gone from the discussion originally until I got a concrete answer from people better and wiser than me and I figured I would share the answer with you, but I fell for the troll bait which is my own mistake.

It is a roll to apply wounds, as stated on the power itself. 3d6 subtract LD and you apply that many wounds. It isn't the same as rolling against the targets toughness as the spell, if it hits, is an auto wound.

 Cheexsta wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Cheexsta wrote:
Is anyone going to read my post, where I laid out a clear RAW argument for exactly one To Hit die being used for this power?

If you disagree, I'd like to see specifically what's wrong with my argument.

Your previous post makes the assumption that the effect is dependent on the roll to hit.

It also assumes that 1 is the default even though this is not stated anywhere. Your Premise 3 applies to shooting weapons, not Psychic powers.

The roll to hit is a requirement of witchfire powers. There is no rule allowing you to apply the effect of something without being the rule's requirements.

Witchfire powers roll to hit exactly like as if with a firing weapon, as per premise 1, which why premise 3 is relevant. While 1 shot it's never explicitly stated anywhere premise 3 points out that multiple shots must be defined by the weapon.

This is how we play it. Unless stated otherwise, it is 1 shot, so one dice. Unless something states otherwise this is how it is played

 Cheexsta wrote:
The roll to hit is a requirement of witchfire powers.

This is true.

There is no rule allowing you to apply the effect of something without being the rule's requirements.

Not sure what you mean by this, but:

"Assuming the Psychic test was passed and the enemy did not negate it with a successful Deny the Witch test, the power has been successfully manifested. Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry." (The Psychic Phase section Resolve Psychic power sub-section, 1st sentence in bold).

If you do not apply the effects after a missed roll to hit have you "Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry."?

The "instructions in its entry" do not say that a successful roll to hit is needed to apply the effects of Psychic Shriek.

Witchfire powers roll to hit exactly like as if with a firing weapon, as per premise 1, which why premise 3 is relevant. While 1 shot it's never explicitly stated anywhere premise 3 points out that multiple shots must be defined by the weapon.

#1 draws similarities between shooting and Witchfires, but I do not see anything that states "Witchfire powers roll to hit exactly like as if with a firing weapon" this statement is made up and does not appear in the rules anywhere.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Cheexsta wrote:
The roll to hit is a requirement of witchfire powers.

This is true.

There is no rule allowing you to apply the effect of something without being the rule's requirements.

Not sure what you mean by this, but:

"Assuming the Psychic test was passed and the enemy did not negate it with a successful Deny the Witch test, the power has been successfully manifested. Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry." (The Psychic Phase section Resolve Psychic power sub-section, 1st sentence in bold).

If you do not apply the effects after a missed roll to hit have you "Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry."?

The "instructions in its entry" do not say that a successful roll to hit is needed to apply the effects of Psychic Shriek.

Witchfire powers roll to hit exactly like as if with a firing weapon, as per premise 1, which why premise 3 is relevant. While 1 shot it's never explicitly stated anywhere premise 3 points out that multiple shots must be defined by the weapon.

#1 draws similarities between shooting and Witchfires, but I do not see anything that states "Witchfire powers roll to hit exactly like as if with a firing weapon" this statement is made up and does not appear in the rules anywhere.

The RB states that Witchfire, and I quote "Similarly, a Witchfire power must roll To-Hit, unless it has the Blast Special rule, in which case it scatters as described in the Blast special rule, or it is a Template Weapon, which hits automatically. Saves can be taken against Wounds from witchfire in the same way as for any other shooting attack" (Types of Psychic Powers, Witchfire.)

That is not the same as saying "Witchfire powers roll to hit exactly like as if with a firing weapon"

They have similarities, but not exactly alike.

Zodiark - argument conceded then. You cannot show a requirement on a successful roll to hit, as we know and you agree, that shriek is not a roll to wound.

Thus even if you miss with your made up number of shots, you still MUST resolve the power according to its entry, which as you are aware does not require a successful roll to hit first.

So even if you "miss" with your X dice, you still roll 3d6, etc

And I did read your posts, and no it wasn't Rigeld who was mistaken. You seem to think words are unimportant, which in a written medium is amusing.

Oh, and rule one. Again.

 DeathReaper wrote:
That is not the same as saying "Witchfire powers roll to hit exactly like as if with a firing weapon"

They have similarities, but not exactly alike.

I didn't say it rolled exactly like a firing weapon. I directly quoted the BRB which lists the rulings itself. I.e., unless a rule states differently, you ALWAYS follow RAW


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Zodiark - argument conceded then. You cannot show a requirement on a successful roll to hit, as we know and you agree, that shriek is not a roll to wound.

Thus even if you miss with your made up number of shots, you still MUST resolve the power according to its entry, which as you are aware does not require a successful roll to hit first.

So even if you "miss" with your X dice, you still roll 3d6, etc

And I did read your posts, and no it wasn't Rigeld who was mistaken. You seem to think words are unimportant, which in a written medium is amusing.

Oh, and rule one. Again.

Umm, you need to roll to hit for Psychic Shriek, the common practice everywhere I have played and the bulk of people I have talked to about this, including those in this own conversation have stated rolling one dice. If the dice misses, the power cannot inflict any wounds. If it hits, then you would roll to see how many wounds would be applied.

Rule one again? Make sense, stop trolling, contribute something that isn't pointless argument please.

Nobody said X dice, my statement from the beginning has been rolling ONE dice to see if it hits. If it hits, you resolve said power, if it does not, you can not. This is RAW, good day

Seeing as though witchfires specifically dictate that a roll to hit is required, I find it absurd to claim that the roll to hit has no effect on the success of casting a witchfire.

That is why tournaments and everyone else but a few rules lawyers do not play it that way.

Rather than claiming that the witchfire rules allow for psychic shriek to ignore the roll to hit, you should just be admitting that there is a lack of information on how the writers intended it to be resolved.

Saying that a single dice is rolled and compared to balistic skill at least has some integrity to it.

Claiming you roll 0d6 or just ignore the result is WAAC.

Zodiark wrote:
Nobody said X dice, my statement from the beginning has been rolling ONE dice to see if it hits. If it hits, you resolve said power, if it does not, you can not. This is RAW, good day

(Emphasis mine).

You have yet to prove the underlined assertation.

How do you guys have the energy to argue this when the intent is clear as day?

 DeathReaper wrote:

There is no rule allowing you to apply the effect of something without being the rule's requirements.

Not sure what you mean by this, but:

"Assuming the Psychic test was passed and the enemy did not negate it with a successful Deny the Witch test, the power has been successfully manifested. Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry." (The Psychic Phase section Resolve Psychic power sub-section, 1st sentence in bold).

If you do not apply the effects after a missed roll to hit have you "Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry."?

The "instructions in its entry" do not say that a successful roll to hit is needed to apply the effects of Psychic Shriek.

Edit: my mistake, my phone autocorrected the sentence you quoted. It should have read "There is no rule allowing you to apply the effect on something without meeting the rule's requirements."

The instructions in its entry state that it is a Witchfire power, so we must also cross-reference those rules in order to complete every requirement for the power.

Another quote to add to this: "The many varieties of psychic powers are organised into distinct categories. These determine any targeting requirements and other restrictions that apply along with its type, if it has one." (Psychic Phase, Types of Psychic Powers)

You cannot ignore these requirements and restrictions any more than you can ignore those listed in the power itself.

So, to answer your question: if you fail your roll To Hit, then yes, you absolutely do stop resolving the effects there, as you have applied the effects as far as you can go. You are not given permission to resolve every effect of the power regardless of restrictions, including being required to roll To Hit, only being able to affect a unit within 18", and not being able to affect units that are locked in combat.

Witchfire powers roll to hit exactly like as if with a firing weapon, as per premise 1, which why premise 3 is relevant. While 1 shot it's never explicitly stated anywhere premise 3 points out that multiple shots must be defined by the weapon.

#1 draws similarities between shooting and Witchfires, but I do not see anything that states "Witchfire powers roll to hit exactly like as if with a firing weapon" this statement is made up and does not appear in the rules anywhere.

I used the word "exactly" instead of the word "just". In this context, they are synonymous. We are told that Witchfires roll To Hit (amongst other things) just like you would with a weapon. The rules for Weapons tell us that the individual weapon will tell you if you get to fire multiple shots.

 extremefreak17 wrote:
How do you guys have the energy to argue this when the intent is clear as day?

Because (a) we're discussing the rules, not intent and (b) the intent is clear as day to some people that you do roll to hit and if you hit it does nothing, while the intent is clear as day to other people that you do not roll to hit.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
Nobody said X dice, my statement from the beginning has been rolling ONE dice to see if it hits. If it hits, you resolve said power, if it does not, you can not. This is RAW, good day

(Emphasis mine).

You have yet to prove the underlined assertation.

We have... at least 3 times. And you have yet to provide any rule that supports not rolling to hit, or rolling 0D6 (which is a ludicrous assertion). But in case you're not clear on this... let's go through the whole thing one more time.

The relevent rules again:

Lets start with the rule you keep trotting out as justification for your argument, I believe that would be:

BRB pg 26 "Assuming the Psychic test was passed and the enemy did not negate it with a successful Deny the Witch test, the power has been successfully manifested. Resolve it's effects according to the instructions in its entry."

So, assuming we get to this point what do we do... well:

BRB pg 198 "Psychic Shriek is a witchfire power with a range of 18."

Well, in order to resolve it's effects we have to look up how to resolve a witchfire spell:

BRB pg 27 Under Witchfire "Similarly, a witchfire power MUST roll To Hit, unless it has the Blast special rule... or it is a Template weapon."

Look back at Psychic Shriek, it says nothing about it being a blast or template, or describing any other way To Hit, therefore we know we must roll to hit... how do we do that:

BRB pg 32 Under Roll To Hit "To determine if the firing model has hit its target, roll a D6 for each shot that is in range. Most models only get to fire one shot..."

and later on the page. "Note that the minimum roll needed To Hit is ALWAYS at least 2. When rolling To Hit, there is no such thing as an automatic hit and a roll of 1 always misses."


So yes... as per the rule your side keeps quoting, you are told to resolve the psychic power if you successfully cast. Then you read the power, which tells you it is a witchfire. Witchfire tells you you need to roll to hit, therefore you must. Rolling to hit tells that rolling to hit involves AT LEAST 1D6 (the rule makes allowances for things that involve more shots, but not less). And that nothing hits automatically. Therefore, you roll to hit, if you miss you have successfully manifested the power as per it's rules that it is a witchfire, it just doesn't do anything further because you missed your target. If you hit, then you proceed to do what the rest of the power describes (3d6 against leadership to determine how many wounds are suffered by the target unit).

In what way is any of this not clear? We have answered your question (several times over in this thread). And no one has yet provided a single Rule that justiifies this rule hitting automatically or somehow allowing a 0d6 roll. The burden of proof is now on your side my friend. Stop claiming otherwise.

Assumptions you are making:
- Most models only get to fire one shot, therefore Psychic Shriek is a single shot power (this is like saying most Tyranids have Instinctive Behaviour, therefore Genestealers have Instinctive Behaviour). This is a logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent.
- If you miss the to-hit roll Psychic Shriek resolves without effect

Please provide rules to support both of these premises.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Assumptions you are making:
- Most models only get to fire one shot, therefore Psychic Shriek is a single shot power (this is like saying most Tyranids have Instinctive Behaviour, therefore Genestealers have Instinctive Behaviour). This is a logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent.
- If you miss the to-hit roll Psychic Shriek resolves without effect

Please provide rules to support both of these premises.

1. Witchfires roll To Hit like weapons. Weapons that fire multiple times must say so. This power does not say it fires multiple times, therefore you can only either 0 or 1 dice as any other number is "multiple". If you roll 0 dice, you do not satisfy the requirement of rolling To Hit like a weapon.

2. The "Types of Psychic Powers" section states that a psychic power's category determines any targeting requirements and other restrictions. If you do not meet the requirements for a rule, how are you supposed to apply it?

This all said, I wouldn't mind if my opponent tries to claim your position as RAW. That just means that my Be'lakor can use Shriek on units across the board that are locked in combat.

Zodiark wrote:

"Roll to hit with Witchfire (BS of psyker).
Roll to wound with 3d6 - leadership.
Apply wounds." (Rogueeyes, 2012)

Automatically Appended Next Post:

No, the 3d6 roll is not a to-wound roll. Not even close actually.

Really, so you're not rolling 3d6 against the units LD in order to determine how many wounds the target suffers?

One of the advantages of having taken a break from 40K is not having a tendency to pull rules from previous editions.
So when I want to learn how a psychic power works, I read it all.

Must be able to see the target.
Target cannot be locked in combat if he wishes to manifest.
Must roll to hit (unless blast, template or auto hit)
Saves are taken in the same way as for any other shooting, and hits are allocated to the closest target models to the psyker.
WTF? Where the directions to roll to wound, and why are we distributing hits and not Wounds?

If you follow the RAW for resolving a Psychic shooting attack, you never roll to wound.


If you just jump over to the shooting rules instead, we have the process:
Nominate and shoot - Check, would be nominate and manifest
Choose a Target - Check
Select a Weapon - By default, you'd be using the witchfire
Roll to hit: Roll a D6 for each shot fired... Errr....
Roll to Wound: For each shot that hit, roll to see if it wounds the target, compairing strength and toughness... Errrr....
Allocate Wounds and Remove Casualties:

Shooting rules don't allow for 1 roll to hit to cause multiple hits, without a specific exception (Telsa).
Shooting rules don't allow for hits to auto-wound without a specific exceptions.
From a pure RAW standpoint, it's unplayable.

To make it best fit into the shooting rules, I would:
Roll 3D6, subtract targets Leadership. This is how many shots you get. Hits auto wound, and armor and cover saves may not be taken. This power has no effect on vehicles.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Assumptions you are making:
- Most models only get to fire one shot, therefore Psychic Shriek is a single shot power (this is like saying most Tyranids have Instinctive Behaviour, therefore Genestealers have Instinctive Behaviour). This is a logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent.
- If you miss the to-hit roll Psychic Shriek resolves without effect

Please provide rules to support both of these premises.

You are also making an assumption, that a requirement of Rolling to Hit can be fullfilled by rolling no dice, or by ignoring the result. And have yet to provide any rule that supports that statement.

I have shown that:

a) Psychic Shriek is a Witchfire.

b) Witchfires must roll to hit.

and c) Nothing that Rolls to Hit hits automatically.

Yes, I am making the assumption that this roll to Hit is 1 dice. Because of the possible options it is the only logical conclusion left.

Let's examine the options:

1) Don't Roll to hit. This is clearly not the case as we are told by points a) and b)
2) Roll 0D6. This is equivalent to not rolling to hit, which is covered above.
3) Roll 1D6. An assumption indeed, but one supported by the "Most models..." rule quote above. Yes it requires a bit of a logical leap, but a plausible one.
4) Roll XD6. Well, we would need to define X... there is no weapon profile to go off of... and the power clearly states it generates a number of wounds not hits, so that's not the case. So we are left with an undefined quantity and no way to resolve this if it were the case.
5) Roll To Hit, but ignore the result. This rule begs the question... why require a roll to Hit? We are told we can't hit automatically, and that in a roll to Hit a roll of 1 always misses. So if a witchfire misses, how do you justify generating wounds.

So yes, I have made assumptions, but those assumptions are that when a rule tells you to do something, that something has a meaningful purpose. And using logical deduction on the RAW to determine what that purpose is.

Your assumptions a) have no RAW support, b) ignore and/or contradict several rules which I have provide. So unless you can provide any rules that say "Roll 0D6, or "Roll to hit but ignore the result". Your method for resolving the power is in violation of RAW and can't be the case.

 Cheexsta wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Assumptions you are making:
- Most models only get to fire one shot, therefore Psychic Shriek is a single shot power (this is like saying most Tyranids have Instinctive Behaviour, therefore Genestealers have Instinctive Behaviour). This is a logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent.
- If you miss the to-hit roll Psychic Shriek resolves without effect

Please provide rules to support both of these premises.

1. Witchfires roll To Hit like weapons. Weapons that fire multiple times must say so. This power does not say it fires multiple times, therefore you can only either 0 or 1 dice as any other number is "multiple". If you roll 0 dice, you do not satisfy the requirement of rolling To Hit like a weapon.

2. The "Types of Psychic Powers" section states that a psychic power's category determines any targeting requirements and other restrictions. If you do not meet the requirements for a rule, how are you supposed to apply it?

This all said, I wouldn't mind if my opponent tries to claim your position as RAW. That just means that my Be'lakor can use Shriek on units across the board that are locked in combat.

1. "To determine if the firing model has hit its target, roll a D6 for each shot that is in range." - Witchfire does not list any shots in its profile, so the amount of D6s you must roll according to the shooting rules for weapons is 0.

2. The requirements for Witchfires:
" Just like when shooting a weapon, a Psyker must be able to see the target unit (or target point) and cannot be locked in combat if he wishes to manifest a witchfire power. Similarly, a witchfire power must roll To Hit..."

And as a shooting attack, it also follows the shooting restrctions:

"Certain situations prevent a model from firing. The most common are:

• Their unit is locked in close combat with the foe.
• Their unit is running"

"Once you have chosen the unit that you want to shoot with, choose a single enemy unit for them to shoot at. To do so, you must check the range and line of sight from your unit to the enemy unit you are targeting"

So we know that in order to resolve Psychic Shriek, we must have gone through the steps of manifesting a psychic power, be within range and line of sight of an enemy, cannot be locked in combat or running (or have another restriction that stops it from shooting, like 0 BS or having Gone to Ground), and we must roll to hit.
Now, I can't find a single rule that says this roll to hit must hit in order to roll 3d6 and subtract the target's leadership, then inflict that many wounds, perhaps you could point it out to me?

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 Cheexsta wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Assumptions you are making:
- Most models only get to fire one shot, therefore Psychic Shriek is a single shot power (this is like saying most Tyranids have Instinctive Behaviour, therefore Genestealers have Instinctive Behaviour). This is a logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent.
- If you miss the to-hit roll Psychic Shriek resolves without effect

Please provide rules to support both of these premises.

1. Witchfires roll To Hit like weapons. Weapons that fire multiple times must say so. This power does not say it fires multiple times, therefore you can only either 0 or 1 dice as any other number is "multiple". If you roll 0 dice, you do not satisfy the requirement of rolling To Hit like a weapon.

2. The "Types of Psychic Powers" section states that a psychic power's category determines any targeting requirements and other restrictions. If you do not meet the requirements for a rule, how are you supposed to apply it?

This all said, I wouldn't mind if my opponent tries to claim your position as RAW. That just means that my Be'lakor can use Shriek on units across the board that are locked in combat.

1. "To determine if the firing model has hit its target, roll a D6 for each shot that is in range." - Witchfire does not list any shots in its profile, so the amount of D6s you must roll according to the shooting rules for weapons is 0.

2. The requirements for Witchfires:
" Just like when shooting a weapon, a Psyker must be able to see the target unit (or target point) and cannot be locked in combat if he wishes to manifest a witchfire power. Similarly, a witchfire power must roll To Hit..."

And as a shooting attack, it also follows the shooting restrctions:

"Certain situations prevent a model from firing. The most common are:

• Their unit is locked in close combat with the foe.
• Their unit is running"

"Once you have chosen the unit that you want to shoot with, choose a single enemy unit for them to shoot at. To do so, you must check the range and line of sight from your unit to the enemy unit you are targeting"

So we know that in order to resolve Psychic Shriek, we must have gone through the steps of manifesting a psychic power, be within range and line of sight of an enemy, cannot be locked in combat or running (or have another restriction that stops it from shooting, like 0 BS or having Gone to Ground), and we must roll to hit.
Now, I can't find a single rule that says this roll to hit must hit in order to roll 3d6 and subtract the target's leadership, then inflict that many wounds, perhaps you could point it out to me?

Premise 1 is incorrect. As the rules for Rolling to hit say a number of d6's, and then goes on to say that number is usually one, and can be MORE. There IS no rules support for rolling less than one die to hit, unless you are specifically told to do something instead of rolling to hit. Psychic shriek does not describe any alternative to hit. And you are still ignoring the rules that say nothing automatically hits. And rolling a die to hit, then ignoring it is doing just that... hitting automatically.

Are you suggesting that 0 is not a number?
I have quoted the rules support, a d6 per shot, 0 shots, 0 d6s.
I don't think it automatically hits, I think that it doesn't hit at all.

We agree that Psychic Shriek is a Witchfire, that much is clearly stated. We also agree that Witchfires Roll To Hit. Also clearly stated.

We also know that most witchfire's have a weapon like profile that tells you how many D6 to roll, or provide an alternate method of determining if the target unit is hit.

Finally we agree, that Psychic Shriek itself, does not give us any indication of how many dice to roll. Or any way to determine if the target unit is Hit.


Therefore, anything that comes after that is an assumption.

My assumption is 1D6, and that the rest of the power is contingent on that roll.

Yours is that, you ignore the requirement of a roll to hit, since no specific number is given.

RAW there is no definite support for either interpretation.

We could go round and round asking each other to state rules that prove our claim, and cite what we think other rules mean. But ultimately, neither will ever convince the other because the RAW instructions to pick one or the other just don't exist.

I claim it to be simpler to extrapolate based on less certain wording that 1 die is rolled (models typically fire one shot but are sometimes told to fire more), you claim it is simpler to just ignore that requirement (roll to hit, but the result has no impact).

Until it is FAQ'd all we can do is say what we think is RAI, and HIWPI.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 Cheexsta wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Assumptions you are making:
- Most models only get to fire one shot, therefore Psychic Shriek is a single shot power (this is like saying most Tyranids have Instinctive Behaviour, therefore Genestealers have Instinctive Behaviour). This is a logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent.
- If you miss the to-hit roll Psychic Shriek resolves without effect

Please provide rules to support both of these premises.

1. Witchfires roll To Hit like weapons. Weapons that fire multiple times must say so. This power does not say it fires multiple times, therefore you can only either 0 or 1 dice as any other number is "multiple". If you roll 0 dice, you do not satisfy the requirement of rolling To Hit like a weapon.

2. The "Types of Psychic Powers" section states that a psychic power's category determines any targeting requirements and other restrictions. If you do not meet the requirements for a rule, how are you supposed to apply it?

This all said, I wouldn't mind if my opponent tries to claim your position as RAW. That just means that my Be'lakor can use Shriek on units across the board that are locked in combat.

1. "To determine if the firing model has hit its target, roll a D6 for each shot that is in range." - Witchfire does not list any shots in its profile, so the amount of D6s you must roll according to the shooting rules for weapons is 0.

2. The requirements for Witchfires:
" Just like when shooting a weapon, a Psyker must be able to see the target unit (or target point) and cannot be locked in combat if he wishes to manifest a witchfire power. Similarly, a witchfire power must roll To Hit..."

And as a shooting attack, it also follows the shooting restrctions:

"Certain situations prevent a model from firing. The most common are:

• Their unit is locked in close combat with the foe.
• Their unit is running"

"Once you have chosen the unit that you want to shoot with, choose a single enemy unit for them to shoot at. To do so, you must check the range and line of sight from your unit to the enemy unit you are targeting"

So we know that in order to resolve Psychic Shriek, we must have gone through the steps of manifesting a psychic power, be within range and line of sight of an enemy, cannot be locked in combat or running (or have another restriction that stops it from shooting, like 0 BS or having Gone to Ground), and we must roll to hit.
Now, I can't find a single rule that says this roll to hit must hit in order to roll 3d6 and subtract the target's leadership, then inflict that many wounds, perhaps you could point it out to me?

That's probably the best argument I've seen so far against rolling to hit. Until a FAQ comes out, I'll be happy to play this way if my opponent prefers it.

Were I to make a houserule for this, I would choose the option that involves adding less rules to Psychic Shriek, so instead of:

Psychic Shriek is an assault 1 witchfire power with a range of 18". It has no strength or AP value and does not cause wounds. Instead, if Psychic Shriek hits the target unit, roll 3D6 and subtract the target’s Leadership – the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result. Armour and cover saves cannot be taken against Wounds caused by Psychic Shriek. If the power does not hit the target unit it resolves without effect.

I would go with:

Psychic Shriek is a witchfire power with a range of 18" that does not roll to hit. Roll 3D6 and subtract the target’s Leadership – the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result. Armour and cover saves cannot be taken against Wounds caused by Psychic Shriek.

Yes... but in either case then you would have to write those words in to Haemorrhage & Purge Soul. As well. Thus making the best choice for adding fewer rules the rule book being to add to Witchfires description ""Similarly, a witchfire power MUST roll To Hit (Treat as Assault 1 unless sepcified otherwise), unless it has the Blast special rule ... or it is a Template weapon."

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 extremefreak17 wrote:
How do you guys have the energy to argue this when the intent is clear as day?

Because (a) we're discussing the rules, not intent

I am sorry, but you lost me here. You are doing what?

and (b) the intent is clear as day to some people that you do roll to hit and if you hit it does nothing, while the intent is clear as day to other people that you do not roll to hit.

But in this edition Witchfires require a successful to hit -roll to actually hit anything. Now some are stuck with the concept that because the power says A then we can ignore B. I partially understand that point of view, but do not accept it. There is no support anywhere to suggest that you could just ignore that requirement.

The ability to manifest does not equal the ability to automatically hit your target.

This should be clarified by GW in a FAQ, but I'm not holding my breath.

This argument will never cease.

Naw wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 extremefreak17 wrote:
How do you guys have the energy to argue this when the intent is clear as day?

Because (a) we're discussing the rules, not intent

I am sorry, but you lost me here. You are doing what?

and (b) the intent is clear as day to some people that you do roll to hit and if you hit it does nothing, while the intent is clear as day to other people that you do not roll to hit.

But in this edition Witchfires require a successful to hit -roll to actually hit anything. Now some are stuck with the concept that because the power says A then we can ignore B. I partially understand that point of view, but do not accept it. There is no support anywhere to suggest that you could just ignore that requirement.

The ability to manifest does not equal the ability to automatically hit your target.

This should be clarified by GW in a FAQ, but I'm not holding my breath.

This argument will never cease.

I'm not suggesting that the power automatically hits or that it can hit even if does not have a successful to hit roll.
I am saying that it does not hit and that hits are completely irrelevant to the functioning of the power.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chanceafs wrote:
Yes... but in either case then you would have to write those words in to Haemorrhage & Purge Soul. As well. Thus making the best choice for adding fewer rules the rule book being to add to Witchfires description ""Similarly, a witchfire power MUST roll To Hit (Treat as Assault 1 unless sepcified otherwise), unless it has the Blast special rule ... or it is a Template weapon."

You would then also need to add the text into each Witchfire power like Psychic Shriek that it only affects the unit if said to hit roll we are adding to the rules results in a hit, and it does not affect the the unit if it misses.

I personally am with raven on this one., but no one I know will play it like that. The reason I am on his side is partially his own arguments which I will not rehash myself, but the fact that witchfires have a weapon profile like any ranged weapon in the game, where ones that don't roll to hit have wound resolution (focused witchfires for example). I assumed GW put the witchfire classification onto it to allow it to be fired from a fire point (and in 6th ed to be done in the shooting phase).

As a whole psychic shriek is a mess of a power. We have no weapon profile to work with for resolving a shooting attack, the sentence structure of the power itself does not connect the wound resolution to the witchfire (the words, "if the attack hits", or "if the shot successfully hits" is omitted). Even RAI doesn't hold up as its rule structure is closer to that of a focused witchfire or malediction than that of a witchfire.

Once again, this can be added to the Witchfire description. Unless specified otherwise, treat these powers as an Assault 1 weapon, that if a Hit is caused has the described effect.

But in truth, all that is, is a very long way of saying "Witchfire powers MUST roll to hit." But apparently saying you have to do something, and understanding that thing has a bearing on what follows is too much of an logical leap for some people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And since there are at least 4 Witchfire powers in the game that do not have a specific profile, nor any alternate method of generating Hits. It seems far more reasonable to me to assume that saying witchfires need to roll to Hit was a way to address these powers specifically since a power with a shooting profile is pretty clear on the whole "needing a roll to hit".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That said... as we have pretty much agreed that there is currently no RAW way to resolve this debate. There is no need for this topic to continue. Goodnight.

chanceafs wrote:
That said... as we have pretty much agreed that there is currently no RAW way to resolve this debate. There is no need for this topic to continue. Goodnight.

I would agree with this. It's not clear one way or another, so needs a FAQ. In the meantime, just D6 it with your opponent

What IS clear is that, unlike rolling to-wound, rolling 3d6... Is NOT contingent on rolling a successful roll to-hit

Those who claim it is contingent, please for the first time this thread, prove it. It is proven for rolls to-wound, similar proof is required for 3d6

Zodiark - reported, again, as you seem incapable of obeying the tenets of this forum. You also have not supplied a rules based argument, nor rebutted others, nor marked your posts as hywpi.

Let us all keep Rule no.1 in mind when arguing in YMDC.

Those who claim the ToHit roll has no bearing on the resolving of the effect have failed so far to indicate what rules allow them to bypass the ToHit roll, which can not be resolved.

Instead they seem bent on stressing that the ToHit roll has no effect and gloss over it...

The fact that the rules say:
Witchfires are shooting attacks, ..
, and many have profiles similar to ranged weapons (note: many doesn't mean all)
Witchfires must roll To Hit

What could the intent be?

Could it be that if you miss your ToHit roll the witchfire misses and has no effect? Like every other weapon in the game?

The simplest fix to get past the ToHit roll without a profile would be to roll a single die for it and if it misses, it misses!
Would this not fit the intent the best?

Saying it doesn't need to roll To Hit is a far greater 'fix' to the rules and directly contradicts a part of the rules.

So are we arguing rules as written or intent here? I'm getting confused by all these intent arguments being used to try to counter RAW ones.

We're not saying it doesn't need to roll to hit

We are saying the result is irrelevant, as nothing ties a successful to hit to the ability to resolve 3d6... In fact, as per the rules for psychic powers, you are told to resolve it according to your entry. The entry makes no requirement on having "hit", so claiming otherwise is certainly making up rules, and disallowing the resolution is cheating

Yet you can not show me where it not working or being tied to the reslution gives you permission to skip it?

You must roll To Hit.

If you wish to houserule that it isn't needed, that's fine of course.

 Shandara wrote:
Yet you can not show me where it not working or being tied to the reslution gives you permission to skip it?

You must roll To Hit.

If you wish to houserule that it isn't needed, that's fine of course.

I am not saying you can skip it. Just that, no matter what you roll, you still resolve the power according yo it's entry.

You seem to not understand the point. Roll to hit. Use 1, 10 or 10000 dice - it doesn't matter. WHATEVER YOU ROLL you resolve the power. A roll to hit is required. A successful roll is not.

 Shandara wrote:
Yet you can not show me where it not working or being tied to the reslution gives you permission to skip it?

You must roll To Hit.

If you wish to houserule that it isn't needed, that's fine of course.

As I have stated, according to RAW you must roll 0d6 to hit at the beginning of the resolution of the power. I only suggest that we skip the required roll to hit as the result of said roll is irrelevant to the resolution of the power.

Similar to when we have two rules that require you to both reroll all failed results and reroll all successful results. According to RAW you roll all your dice then pick them up and roll them again, but the results of the first roll are completely irrelevant so we skip them and just roll once.

 Shandara wrote:
Those who claim the ToHit roll has no bearing on the resolving of the effect have failed so far to indicate what rules allow them to bypass the ToHit roll, which can not be resolved.

Instead they seem bent on stressing that the ToHit roll has no effect and gloss over it...

The fact that the rules say:
Witchfires are shooting attacks, ..
, and many have profiles similar to ranged weapons (note: many doesn't mean all)
Witchfires must roll To Hit

What could the intent be?

Could it be that if you miss your ToHit roll the witchfire misses and has no effect? Like every other weapon in the game?

The simplest fix to get past the ToHit roll without a profile would be to roll a single die for it and if it misses, it misses!
Would this not fit the intent the best?

Saying it doesn't need to roll To Hit is a far greater 'fix' to the rules and directly contradicts a part of the rules.

Passing the psychic test gives me permission to resolve the power according to its entry. Correct?
Cite denial to resolve the power if your arbitrary number of dice miss.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
What IS clear is that, unlike rolling to-wound, rolling 3d6... Is NOT contingent on rolling a successful roll to-hit

Those who claim it is contingent, please for the first time this thread, prove it. It is proven for rolls to-wound, similar proof is required for 3d6

Zodiark - reported, again, as you seem incapable of obeying the tenets of this forum. You also have not supplied a rules based argument, nor rebutted others, nor marked your posts as hywpi.

Wow, you reported me, okay, big deal. Grow up.

Moving on.

I have quoted, from the BRB numerous times the exact lines in the text that require you to roll to hit, you simply have been neglecting to consider it because it does not support your side of the argument.

The RAW REQUIRE you to roll to hit BEFORE [u] you are able to roll the 3d6. The profile for a Psychic Shriek REQUIRES you to ROLL TO HIT. Any assumption that the number of dice to roll of zero is null and void as zero either represents not rolling a dice or not needing to roll a dice, which would make the power auto-hit, which the power itself would say, yet it doesn't. Any assumption that simply because it doesn't state that you need to roll on the powers entry itself because there is no weapon profile on the power is a manipulation of the rules itself.

As the RAW state that Witchfire power MUST ROLL TO HIT unless STATED otherwise, this circular logic you keep attempting with your weak debate position is fruitless and useless.

Now for the other debater who reported me for disagreeing with him earlier.

Passing the psychic test gives me permission to resolve the power according to its entry. Correct?
Cite denial to resolve the power if your arbitrary number of dice miss.

You first assertion is correct,, successfully passing the psychic test allows you to move onto the next stage, which in the case of a WITCHFIRE power, REQUIRES A ROLL TO HIT.

Throughout the BRB, any time to-hit is mentioned it is assumed and widely accepted that you roll using your BS and if you hit, you hit and if you miss, you miss. Consider that Witchfire requires a roll to hit unless SPECIFICALLY STATED otherwise, you would roll to-hit as you would a shooting weapon and if you hit, you would then roll 3d6, subtracting the targets LD and apply wounds as normal. If you miss the to-hit roll, well the answer is indeed obvious isn't it. Logic dictates that if you miss, you miss. BRB dictates that if you miss a to-hit rule, you miss.

Neither of you have any new arguments or positions in this debate, you're simply grasping at straws. Either play it with your own house rules or follow logic and play it how it is written in the BRB, either way this discussion has been going on for years, this is just the most recent incarnation of a waste in time.

I have models to paint and Psychic Shrikes to perform on opponents who understand RAW and logic.

Peace

On a final note.

Either of you who disagree with rolling to hit on a Witchfire power, unless it is a Blast or Template or the power DIRECTLY states otherwise, prove that you a) do not need to roll to hit, and I mean a DIRECT quote from the rules, not your opinion, not your assumptions, but cold hard FACT, or b) prove that a roll of zero dice or simply not rolling at all allows you to hit, (especially when things that auto-hit SPECIFICALLY tell you that the attack auto-hits), you prove either of these with actual facts and backing, you will have won the debate and we can stop arguing, until you do, you're both wrong and this entire thing has been a waste of everyones time.

As per rules of YMDC, provide examples, from the text that specifically back up your claim.

 extremefreak17 wrote:
How do you guys have the energy to argue this when the intent is clear as day?

It's always amusing to watch Dakka tie itself in knots trying to interpret what should really be very obvious.

Zodiark wrote:Now for the other debater who reported me for disagreeing with him earlier.

No, I didn't. Please don't lie.
Edit to clarify: I don't report people for disagreeing with me. And I haven't reported anyone in this thread. So if you were warned by a mod either they saw your posts and acted on their own, or someone else reported you. Don't place blame where none lies.

Passing the psychic test gives me permission to resolve the power according to its entry. Correct?
Cite denial to resolve the power if your arbitrary number of dice miss.

You first assertion is correct,, successfully passing the psychic test allows you to move onto the next stage, which in the case of a WITCHFIRE power, REQUIRES A ROLL TO HIT.

Throughout the BRB, any time to-hit is mentioned it is assumed and widely accepted that you roll using your BS and if you hit, you hit and if you miss, you miss. Consider that Witchfire requires a roll to hit unless SPECIFICALLY STATED otherwise, you would roll to-hit as you would a shooting weapon and if you hit, you would then roll 3d6, subtracting the targets LD and apply wounds as normal. If you miss the to-hit roll, well the answer is indeed obvious isn't it. Logic dictates that if you miss, you miss. BRB dictates that if you miss a to-hit rule, you miss.

None of that is a denial of permission to resolve the power as it's entry requires. So instead of citing a rule you just repeat what you've already said? Cool story bro.

Either of you who disagree with rolling to hit on a Witchfire power, unless it is a Blast or Template or the power DIRECTLY states otherwise, prove that you a) do not need to roll to hit, and I mean a DIRECT quote from the rules, not your opinion, not your assumptions, but cold hard FACT, or b) prove that a roll of zero dice or simply not rolling at all allows you to hit, (especially when things that auto-hit SPECIFICALLY tell you that the attack auto-hits), you prove either of these with actual facts and backing, you will have won the debate and we can stop arguing, until you do, you're both wrong and this entire thing has been a waste of everyones time.

As per rules of YMDC, provide examples, from the text that specifically back up your claim.

I haven't said you don't have to roll to hit. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else?
I don't see the relevancy in rolling to hit, as you're required to resolve the power according to its entry anyway, regardless if what you roll.

rigel, missing is denial to resolve ANY weapon profile.

to claim missing has no effect on witchfires, is exactly the same as claiming missing has no effect on resolving a bolt guns profile.


just because witchfires have a special profile, does not disclude that profile from having to HIT first to resolve wounds according to its profiles specific rules.

 easysauce wrote:
rigel, missing is denial to resolve ANY weapon profile.

Sure. Where's Psychic Shriek's profile again? I must've missed where you cited the page.

to claim missing has no effect on witchfires, is exactly the same as claiming missing has no effect on resolving a bolt guns profile.

Incorrect. One of these has a profile. The other has instructions on how to resolve it without mentioning missing or hitting.

just because witchfires have a special profile, does not disclude that profile from having to HIT first to resolve wounds according to its profiles specific rules.

Oh, I wasn't aware they had a special profile. Can you explain how it works? A rules based explanation would obviously be best.

 easysauce wrote:
rigel, missing is denial to resolve ANY weapon profile.

Rules quote please.

to claim missing has no effect on witchfires, is exactly the same as claiming missing has no effect on resolving a bolt guns profile.

No it isn't, because the shooting phase rule has very explicit instructions to convert hits into wounds for a normal shooting attack.
If you read Psychic Shriek, you'll notice it does not follow these rules.

just because witchfires have a special profile, does not disclude that profile from having to HIT first to resolve wounds according to its profiles specific rules.

Psychic Shriek doesn't even have a profile, all it has is a range increment.

rigeld2 wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
rigel, missing is denial to resolve ANY weapon profile.

Sure. Where's Psychic Shriek's profile again? I must've missed where you cited the page.

if you missed it , its because you purposefully missed it,

the fact that you know the range listed on the profile, means you know exactly where the profile is.(pg 198)

Stop pretending that every weapon profile must look like (range str ap)

because not all of them do, and witchfires are specifically called out as having often having different profiles in this edition.

we have range, we have a way to work out wounds and AP, all the requirements of a "standard" profile, and despite you claiming this is not a profile, it very much is one.

quote page and rule that defines profiles as ONLY the most common one.

its your own fault if you assume EVERY profile must conform to the exact same layout, please quote PG # that says every single profile must do this or concede that because we are told witchfires have DIFFERENT profiles, that different profiles must exist.



but please, quote the rule and pg # stating that any mandatory roll to hit does not count,

and the pg # and rule that states rolling 0 dice counts as rolling to hit.

So since some people advocate rolling an indeterminate number of dice, I will roll 100 times to hit for Psychic shriek. (Since we are making up rules and all).

Since PS is not a weapon the part about "Some shooting weapons fire multiple shots. Where this is the case, the number of shots a weapon fires is noted after its type." (Weapons, Number Of Shots) does not apply as PS is not a weapon.

 easysauce wrote:
rigel, missing is denial to resolve ANY weapon profile.we have range, we have a way to work out wounds and AP, all the requirements of a "standard" profile, and despite you claiming this is not a profile, it very much is one.

A ranged weapon without any number of attacks in its profile is not really a weapon, as it cannot attack.
Psychic Shriek has a value for its range, but beyond this is different from a weapon profile in every other way.

quote the rule and pg # stating that any mandatory roll to hit does not count,

They are not arguing this point. I'm sure they would 100% agree with you if the question was "Do shooting attacks and psychic powers with weapon profiles roll to hit."
Of course the answer is yes. However, PS is not a standard shooting attack. It does not have an attack value on its profile.

If I cause 8 wounds on a target unit, should I roll to hit once, or 8 times?

The RAW have no answer to this, so most players, because the rules for PS do not explicitly state that it must roll to hit, presume the power auto hits.
This conclusion, unlike others, does not require making up new rules, or cause any more debate over the number of dice to roll, so is most often viewed as the "correct method."

Of course there is no such thing as a "correct method" with PS, due to the holes in its rules. However, creating new rules over the number of dice required to hit is altering the RAW more so than following the literal wording of PS. ("Roll 3D6 and subtract the target’s Leadership – the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result." Nothing about rolling to hit here), Therefore, auto-hits is the more correct answer of the two options, as it draws all of its answers from existing written rules.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
rigel, missing is denial to resolve ANY weapon profile.we have range, we have a way to work out wounds and AP, all the requirements of a "standard" profile, and despite you claiming this is not a profile, it very much is one.

A ranged weapon without any number of attacks in its profile is not really a weapon, as it cannot attack.
Psychic Shriek has a value for its range, but beyond this is different from a weapon profile in every other way.

quote the rule and pg # stating that any mandatory roll to hit does not count,

They are not arguing this point. I'm sure they would 100% agree with you if the question was "Do shooting attacks and psychic powers with weapon profiles roll to hit."
Of course the answer is yes. However, PS is not a standard shooting attack. It does not have an attack value on its profile.

If I cause 8 wounds on a target unit, should I roll to hit once, or 8 times?

The RAW have no answer to this, so most players, because the rules for PS do not explicitly state that it must roll to hit, presume the power auto hits.
This conclusion, unlike others, does not require making up new rules, or cause any more debate over the number of dice to roll, so is most often viewed as the "correct method."

Of course there is no such thing as a "correct method" with PS, due to the holes in its rules. However, creating new rules over the number of dice required to hit is altering the RAW more so than following the literal wording of PS. ("Roll 3D6 and subtract the target’s Leadership – the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result." Nothing about rolling to hit here), Therefore, auto-hits is the more correct answer of the two options, as it draws all of its answers from existing written rules.

Actually "Most" players roll one dice to hit as its a single shot. The only people I have spoken too recently who disagree are the handful in this thread. Also, auto hits must say auto hit, otherwise you must always roll to hit as normal as per RAW

Zodiark wrote:
Actually "Most" players roll one dice to hit as its a single shot. The only people I have spoken too recently who disagree are the handful in this thread. Also, auto hits must say auto hit, otherwise you must always roll to hit as normal as per RAW

Maybe where you play.

Still, what do you do when can't roll to hit as normal as there is no weapon profile. Your choices are make up rules as you are advocating, or follow the exact wording of the power, which does not mention rolling to hit at all.

 easysauce wrote:

Stop pretending that every weapon profile must look like (range str ap)

because not all of them do, and witchfires are specifically called out as having often having different profiles in this edition.

I must be missing that - can you cite it?

we have range, we have a way to work out wounds and AP, all the requirements of a "standard" profile, and despite you claiming this is not a profile, it very much is one.

No, it's demonstrably not a weapon profile if you have to, quote, "work out wounds and AP".

 Big Blind Bill wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
Actually "Most" players roll one dice to hit as its a single shot. The only people I have spoken too recently who disagree are the handful in this thread. Also, auto hits must say auto hit, otherwise you must always roll to hit as normal as per RAW

Maybe where you play.

Still, what do you do when can't roll to hit as normal as there is no weapon profile. Your choices are make up rules as you are advocating, or follow the exact wording of the power, which does not mention rolling to hit at all.

The ruling for resolving witchfire powers is explicit in how it must be done, it even has rules for the exceptions. Nowhere does it say a normal witchfire allows you not to roll a die. This is a faulty interpretation by those in this thread.

Also, how much brow beating was required where you play to convince them it auto hits, because even browsing online, in the numerous threads over the years, the majority has always been that you roll to hit as normal and since it is a one shot you get one die.

Idk how you call this making up rules, its the players Interpretation of the rules, and until GW says otherwise, you have no basing to say they are wrong.

While the other side, following rules as written has RAW to back their claim that you must roll to hit on witchfire powers unless it states otherwise, and it does give examples as to these exceptions.

Zodiark wrote:
While the other side, following rules as written has RAW to back their claim that you must roll to hit on witchfire powers unless it states otherwise, and it does give examples as to these exceptions.

I'm still waiting for why the to-hit roll is relevant. Please use rules to prove your point.

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
While the other side, following rules as written has RAW to back their claim that you must roll to hit on witchfire powers unless it states otherwise, and it does give examples as to these exceptions.

I'm still waiting for why the to-hit roll is relevant. Please use rules to prove your point.

Dude I have, so have a handful of others. It is written right there on the description of Witchfire powers, stop asking questions you already know the answer to and for the love of God, stop ignoring information posted because you are intentionally discounting others arguments purely by pretending they were never stated in this discussion. Also, stop being argumentative, this issue won't get solved here because to the majority, it is done one way and to a minority it is done another. Seeing as most of us will probably never play against each other, it doesn't matter.

Best advice, when tourneys come, try it out and see what the judges say, until then its speculation to some and obvious to others.

While the other side, following rules as written has RAW to back their claim that you must roll to hit on witchfire powers unless it states otherwise, and it does give examples as to these exceptions.

Sure I agree with you. It should roll to hit as a witchfire power. However you do not have any information on how many dice to roll.

So the choices are:

-Follow some rules, but make other up to do so: The rules say roll to hit, but you have to make up a number of dice to roll.
-Follow the entry of PS to the letter, and ignore the blanket roll to hit statement because it is currently broken and does not actually tell you what to do with regards to PS.

These are the two options as it stands. I would opt for ignoring the broken rule, rather than making my own homebrewed rules to cover it.
As said before, there is no right answer, however to me ignoring a broken rule is staying more true to actual rules of the game than creating up rules out of the air.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:

While the other side, following rules as written has RAW to back their claim that you must roll to hit on witchfire powers unless it states otherwise, and it does give examples as to these exceptions.

Sure I agree with you. It should roll to hit as a witchfire power. However you do not have any information on how many dice to roll.

So the choices are:

-Follow some rules, but make other up to do so: The rules say roll to hit, but you have to make up a number of dice to roll.
-Follow the entry of PS to the letter, and ignore the blanket roll to hit statement because it is currently broken and does not actually tell you what to do with regards to PS.

These are the two options as it stands. I would opt for ignoring the broken rule, rather than making my own homebrewed rules to cover it.
As said before, there is no right answer, however to me ignoring a broken rule is staying more true to actual rules of the game than creating up rules out of the air.

How is it a homebrewed rule to say it is a single shot. The wording in the name is singular, witchfire works like a shooting attack, shooting attacks specifically mention when they get more than one shot, assuming anything more than one on Psychic Shriek is pointless, assuming less than one simply does not work as it is clearly not an auto-hit attack because it lacks the ruling auto-hit.

Again, best advice, go to a tourney, see what a judge says or play it however your playgroup wants to go about doing it, but don't go about it assuming it's right simply because there is not a direct sentence affirming or denying your position.

There is more references in the BRB support my claim than there is supporting yours, this is not an interpretation, but rules as written. The RAW may not be explicit enough for some, but to many the answer is obvious and debating the subject is pointless as it will change the mind of neither side and both sides will simply go back to playing it however they want it either way.

Zodiark wrote:
How is it a homebrewed rule to say it is a single shot. The wording in the name is singular, witchfire works like a shooting attack, shooting attacks specifically mention when they get more than one shot, assuming anything more than one on Psychic Shriek is pointless, assuming less than one simply does not work as it is clearly not an auto-hit attack because it lacks the ruling auto-hit.

Again, best advice, go to a tourney, see what a judge says or play it however your playgroup wants to go about doing it, but don't go about it assuming it's right simply because there is not a direct sentence affirming or denying your position.

There is more references in the BRB support my claim than there is supporting yours, this is not an interpretation, but rules as written. The RAW may not be explicit enough for some, but to many the answer is obvious and debating the subject is pointless as it will change the mind of neither side and both sides will simply go back to playing it however they want it either way.

It is a homebrewed rule to say it is a single shot because there are no actual rules stating the PS is a single shot. PS does not have a standard weapon profile so we simply do not know how many dice we need to roll to hit.

However the roll to hit does not matter as you need to "Resolve [the Psychic Powers] effects according to the instructions in its entry." (Resolve psychic power section).

Not applying the effects of PS on a miss when you have arbitrarily rolled a number of dice for PS is breaking the rule for Psychic powers.

Zodiark wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
While the other side, following rules as written has RAW to back their claim that you must roll to hit on witchfire powers unless it states otherwise, and it does give examples as to these exceptions.

I'm still waiting for why the to-hit roll is relevant. Please use rules to prove your point.

Dude I have, so have a handful of others.

No, you haven't. At all.

It is written right there on the description of Witchfire powers, stop asking questions you already know the answer to and for the love of God, stop ignoring information posted because you are intentionally discounting others arguments purely by pretending they were never stated in this discussion.

No, it's not in the description of Witchfires. I'm ignoring nothing and resent the accusation.
I haven't seen anyone do anything more than assume it matters. Not a single person has cited a rule showing that the to-hit roll is relevant.

Also, stop being argumentative, this issue won't get solved here because to the majority, it is done one way and to a minority it is done another. Seeing as most of us will probably never play against each other, it doesn't matter.

When you stop posting things as RAW that demonstrably aren't, I'll stop replying.

Best advice, when tourneys come, try it out and see what the judges say, until then its speculation to some and obvious to others.

I've seen it played both ways as tournaments. So appealing to some non-existent majority isn't a good argument.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
How is it a homebrewed rule to say it is a single shot. The wording in the name is singular, witchfire works like a shooting attack, shooting attacks specifically mention when they get more than one shot, assuming anything more than one on Psychic Shriek is pointless, assuming less than one simply does not work as it is clearly not an auto-hit attack because it lacks the ruling auto-hit.

Again, best advice, go to a tourney, see what a judge says or play it however your playgroup wants to go about doing it, but don't go about it assuming it's right simply because there is not a direct sentence affirming or denying your position.

There is more references in the BRB support my claim than there is supporting yours, this is not an interpretation, but rules as written. The RAW may not be explicit enough for some, but to many the answer is obvious and debating the subject is pointless as it will change the mind of neither side and both sides will simply go back to playing it however they want it either way.

It is a homebrewed rule to say it is a single shot because there are no actual rules stating the PS is a single shot. PS does not have a standard weapon profile so we simply do not know how many dice we need to roll to hit.

However the roll to hit does not matter as you need to "Resolve [the Psychic Powers] effects according to the instructions in its entry." (Resolve psychic power section).

Not applying the effects of PS on a miss when you have arbitrarily rolled a number of dice for PS is breaking the rule for Psychic powers.

Except the roll isn't arbitrary, it is necessary. You have to roll, there is no avoiding it. Not rolling is flat out breaking the rules as the power itself does not state that you do not roll. The debate is how many. This is where logic and reading comprehension comes into play. We can agree that Witchfire powers count as shooting attacks. We can also agree that shooting attacks have a different number of shots depending on the weapon being used. We also know that if we shoot with something and it does not state a number greater than 1, then we get one shot. So, we can deduce from RAW and simple logic that because PS, as a shooting attack that does not specify that it receives more than one shot, it only gets one.

Stop looking for a specific line in the text, because you won't find it. What you will find are rules that tell you exactly what you need to do. The power has no weapon profile because if the power successfully hits, wounds are applied automatically according to the 3d6 - LD when you roll, no need for STR or AP at all, RAI this is because it is not necessary when resolving the power.

The argument from your end literally becomes, "It has no weapon profile so we don't know how many time to roll to-hit or how many hits it gets so we are going to play it this way because we can't find anything in the rules to tell us otherwise, oh and you are all wrong because you can't prove my argument wrong."

Logic > opinion


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I've seen it played both ways as tournaments. So appealing to some non-existent majority isn't a good argument.

At the same tournament? I highly doubt that.

And appealing to a majority when what we are doing here is tantamount to theory crafting with the rules, this is exactly what we are doing lol. You have zero facts to back up your point, zero. You have nothing from the rules stating that Witchfire powers with Blast/Template or a statement otherwise do not roll to hit, you are assuming that this particular power does not need to simply because it lacks information generally supplied by other witchfire powers, yet you are not realizing that those powers are working in different ways and thus need to have the weapon profile on them.

Zzz.....you have said you are right so often that you have begun to believe it.

but don't go about it assuming it's right simply because there is not a direct sentence affirming or denying your position.

Who is assuming they are right?

Zodiark: "but to many the answer is obvious"

It is you who is posting in a condescending manor because you won't actually acknowledge any of the responses given to you.

Do you even read what other people have been writing? Apparently you don't.
As I have said many times now, there is no right answer.

I'm sure tournaments will come down on either side of this, because there is no right answer.

Stating that your argument holds more weight than anyone else's is just plain wrong, because there is no right answer.

You are homebrewing because nowhere does it state "roll one die to hit with PS". Lets see why your interpretation could be wrong.

Flickering fire, for example, is a single psychic power therefore according to you should roll to hit on one die. Should I roll to hit once, and then roll 2-4 D6 and see how many actual hits I got? No, each shot is independent. How do you know PS should not be resolved like this? The weapon profile tells us how many dice to roll. Without being told how many dice to roll with a weapon, anything you do next is your own interpretation of the rules.

Let me reiterate it again for you: There is no right answer. It is my opinion that adding rules is a greater variation of the standard rules than ignoring broken ones. That is why I do not roll to hit with PS. Is this the correct way? No. But I feel it is better than the other option.

Flickering fire, for example, is a single psychic power therefore according to you should roll to hit on one die. Should I roll to hit once, and then roll 2-4 D6 and see how many actual hits I got? No, each shot is independent. How do you know PS should not be resolved like this? The weapon profile tells us how many dice to roll. Without being told how many dice to roll with a weapon, anything you do next is your own interpretation of the rules.

Dude, number one, you answered your own question. The weapon tells you what to roll, it specifically tells you. PS does not, I grant that, never said that it did, what the RAW does do though is give you a way of figuring it out. Sure without a direct acknowledgement we will never know for sure.

Also, I have stated, numerous times actually, that we won't know what the right answer is unless GW tells us, Do YOU read other peoples posts? Cause if you did you would notice this. I am simply providing examples as to how RAW supports my assertion over the opposing. Does this make my answer right, not entirely, but it does support my argument. Does it make my answer wrong, again no. Then again, nothing in the rules counters my argument either. So once again, I will reiterate for I think the fourth time now. We will not know for sure until GW tells us, which they won't as this issue has been going on for years, but what we can do and what is widely accepted by the majority (look around online on other forums and even this one over the years) and you will find that the majority of players play it as rolling a single die for the to-hit roll. You are free to do whatever you won't, personally I believe you are breaking the rules not doing this as RAW is quite clear to me, but if you need someone to hold your hand through it and read the rules one word at a time for you to understand, then maybe you will never be satisfied.

But until something in the BRB specifically counters anything in my argument, I will consider myself right. Because in a debate, if the opponent cannot disprove your point, their point has no merit and they have lost. All your side has done is ask again and again for people to cite things from RAW and we have, plenty of times, you simply choose to ignore it.

So for the last time, play it however you want, just know you're most likely doing it wrong.

Because in a debate, if the opponent cannot disprove your point, their point has no merit and they have lost.

The exact same is true for you.

what the RAW does do though is give you a way of figuring it out

No it doesn't. You are homebrewing if you have to figure something out.

All your side has done is ask again and again for people to cite things from RAW and we have, plenty of times, you simply choose to ignore it.

Because this goes back to the first quote of yours that I posted. If you can't disprove the point then you lose.
Please, for all our benefit, provide a quote and page number of the attack profile or rules determining the number of dice rolled to hit when using psychic shriek.
If you can't provide it, then it is not RAW, and therefore what you are stating as the truth, is actually an interpretation.

just know you're most likely doing it wrong.

We're both doing it wrong. There is no right with the current rules.

We're both doing it wrong. There is no right with the current rules.

Very likely the case, but I will reiterate, logic is on my side of the argument as is RAW, simply read through the thread, it details it for you. This argument is exhausting and is actually making me not wanting to play this game at all if I have to deal with people like this on a regular basis (thankfully I don't) maybe it's just where I play, but things like this don't bring up heated discussions, they are logically deduced and not theory crafted, guess I'm used to more open-minded people and not those seeking advantages in their play.

Just answer the question.

Please, for all our benefit, provide a quote and page number of the attack profile or rules determining the number of dice rolled to hit when using psychic shriek.
If you can't provide it, then it is not RAW, and therefore what you are stating as the truth, is actually an interpretation.

Once you've done this then you can feel free to try and promote the merits of your "logic" and "open mindedness" in your own indirectly rude manor.

Thanks.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
Just answer the question.

Please, for all our benefit, provide a quote and page number of the attack profile or rules determining the number of dice rolled to hit when using psychic shriek.
If you can't provide it, then it is not RAW, and therefore what you are stating as the truth, is actually an interpretation.

Once you've done this then you can feel free to try and promote the merits of your "logic" and "open mindedness" in your own indirectly rude manor.

Thanks.

Dude, I told you it was an interpretation, its something called READING COMPREHENSION. Try it. Unless something specifically states the opposite, the affirmative is true. PS does not auto hit, therefore you must roll. The question is how many, considering any other shooting attack that has greater than one shot states that it does, PS, which clearly does not state it has multiple shots, has one shot. An interpretation, true. But it fits logic and it is how the answer has been found by many and the people I have asked have explained it as thus, if you disagree, give an exact quote from the RAW that shows the opposite, otherwise you are simply arguing from a position with no base.

Assuming you either do not roll for PS, violates the rules of Witchfire, assuming you do not roll to hit violates rules of Witchfire, assuming you roll more than one die, violates the rules of shooting because you only roll for how many shots fired and PS is a single shot.

Interpretation =/= rules.

So the RAW is not on your side. Thank you very much.

Are there any other attacks or powers which require a roll to hit but don't explicitly say how many dice to roll?

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
Interpretation =/= rules.

So the RAW is not on your side. Thank you very much.

You're sidestepping the point. YMDC discusses issues in the RAW that are unclear to the players. This, to me as a player is not an unclear rule, it is quite clear and easily understood.

The BRB as a whole provides you with every tool you need to answer this question, you simply need to put 1+1 together to = 2.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 pocketcanoe wrote:
Are there any other attacks or powers which require a roll to hit but don't explicitly say how many dice to roll?

Yes, someone mentioned them earlier. Yet there was no argument about how they are resolved.

The issue with this one comes from the fact that the power is indeed quite good and I figure one of the dissenters for logic and the obviousness of RAW got hit rather hard by the power and is seeking any way to limit its use in game.

Zodiark wrote:

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
Interpretation =/= rules.

So the RAW is not on your side. Thank you very much.

You're sidestepping the point. YMDC discusses issues in the RAW that are unclear to the players. This, to me as a player is not an unclear rule, it is quite clear and easily understood.

The BRB as a whole provides you with every tool you need to answer this question, you simply need to put 1+1 together to = 2.

As long as you keep saying "RAW is on my side" when you also acknowledge you have to make a leap (however logical it may be to you) you're contradicting yourself.
Why is it not logical that all Witchfires without a profile automatically hit?

The issue with this one comes from the fact that the power is indeed quite good and I figure one of the dissenters for logic and the obviousness of RAW got hit rather hard by the power and is seeking any way to limit its use in game.

It's not that powerful. And it's amusing that you think people are biased against it when it's your interpretation that makes it less powerful.
Also, insinuating bias without evidence is rude.

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
Interpretation =/= rules.

So the RAW is not on your side. Thank you very much.

You're sidestepping the point. YMDC discusses issues in the RAW that are unclear to the players. This, to me as a player is not an unclear rule, it is quite clear and easily understood.

The BRB as a whole provides you with every tool you need to answer this question, you simply need to put 1+1 together to = 2.

As long as you keep saying "RAW is on my side" when you also acknowledge you have to make a leap (however logical it may be to you) you're contradicting yourself.
Why is it not logical that all Witchfires without a profile automatically hit?

The issue with this one comes from the fact that the power is indeed quite good and I figure one of the dissenters for logic and the obviousness of RAW got hit rather hard by the power and is seeking any way to limit its use in game.

It's not that powerful. And it's amusing that you think people are biased against it when it's your interpretation that makes it less powerful.
Also, insinuating bias without evidence is rude.

1. My interpretation makes it fair and balanced. Not to mention obvious. It doesn't auto hit. You are targeting one unit with a single shot AoE type attack as that is what a Psychic Shriek is.

2. Not contradicting when my interpretation goes along with RAW.

3. It isn't logical for them to auto-hit because anything that auto-hits specifically states that it does.

This, to me as a player is not an unclear rule, it is quite clear and easily understood.

You understand it as an interpretation. The number of threads about this topic, as well as people on this very thread voicing their own uncertainty over the issue, clearly show that it is not a clear cut issue.

Your argument is "The rulebook says witchfires must roll to hit"

The counter argument is: "Ok, how many dice should we roll?"

Your reply is"Errrm....the book doesn't say.....lets use 1. Yes, 1 is logical. I must be right."

Continuing as you are, preaching that you are correct, and that anyone who disagrees is closed minded, illogical and cheating for advantage really doesn't make for a convincing argument.

Zodiark wrote:
Except the roll isn't arbitrary, it is necessary.

I never said it was arbitrary...

You have to roll, there is no avoiding it.

Never argued otherwise on this point either.

Not rolling is flat out breaking the rules as the power itself does not state that you do not roll. The debate is how many.

Exactly. How many dice do you roll to hit for PS?

If you can show this with actual rules backing the issue would be solved. But there is no such rule, we are never given any direction on how many dice we need to roll to hit with PS.

This is where logic and reading comprehension comes into play. We can agree that Witchfire powers count as shooting attacks.

That is close enough, sure.

We can also agree that shooting attacks have a different number of shots depending on the weapon being used.

This is incorrect.

Shooting attacks have a different number of shots depending on the profile of the weapon being used. Subtle but important difference.

We also know that if we shoot with something and it does not state a number greater than 1, then we get one shot.

The rules do not actually state this. Can we see some actual rules backing next time?

So, we can deduce from RAW and simple logic that because PS, as a shooting attack that does not specify that it receives more than one shot, it only gets one.

Incorrect premise leads to incorrect conclusions like this one.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:

This, to me as a player is not an unclear rule, it is quite clear and easily understood.

You understand it as an interpretation. The number of threads about this topic, as well as people on this very thread voicing their own uncertainty over the issue, clearly show that it is not a clear cut issue.

Your argument is "The rulebook says witchfires must roll to hit"

The counter argument is: "Ok, how many dice should we roll?"

Your reply is"Errrm....the book doesn't say.....lets use 1. Yes, 1 is logical. I must be right."

Continuing as you are, preaching that you are correct, and that anyone who disagrees is closed minded, illogical and cheating for advantage really doesn't make for a convincing argument.

Your final point. 1 is the obvious answer because a Psychic Shriek is a single attack in general. Looking outside the box for a second, if you know how. Lore wise, when a Psyker makes a Psychic Shriek, they are resolving a single attack, not multiples.

Direct quote from GW employee, a better source for a rule than those in a forum. "Psychic Shriek is a single shot with a multiple wound effect."

I will provide a number to someone who works for the company who can answer this for you as I am seriously tired of arguing with you people because none of you have proven anything that states the opposite.

Games Workshop, Tustin California. 714-731-3304 (apologies in advance for posting number, couldn't find anything stating I couldn't)

The exact answer you will receive is exactly what I have been saying this entire time, now seriously, work on your reading comprehension skills.

 pocketcanoe wrote:
Are there any other attacks or powers which require a roll to hit but don't explicitly say how many dice to roll?

All of the Focused Witchfire's do not have a profile either and do not say that they auto hit...

Would you guys argue that you need to roll to hit with Spontaneous Combustion from Pyromancy, or Crush from Telekenesis?

 DeathReaper wrote:

 pocketcanoe wrote:
Are there any other attacks or powers which require a roll to hit but don't explicitly say how many dice to roll?

All of the Focused Witchfire's do not have a profile either and do not say that they auto hit...

Would you guys argue that you need to roll to hit with Spontaneous Combustion from Pyromancy, or Crush from Telekenesis?

What do the cards say? What type of powers are they? Don't have the cards on hand or the book hence why I ask lol, but I think the answer is obvious, do what is on the card based on the rules on how to resolve in BRB

"Spontaneous Combustion is a focussed witchfire power with a range of 18". The target model suffers a Strength 6 AP3 hit with the Soul Blaze special rule. If the model is slain by this hit in the Psychic phase, centre the small blast marker over the target before removing him as a casualty. All other models under the marker suffer a Strength 5 AP4 hit with the Ignores Cover and Soul Blaze special rules." (Psychic Powers section, Pyromancy subsection, 3rd power).

the Focused Witchfire rules, in The Psychic Phase section state: "Some witchfire powers can pick out models in an enemy unit – these are called focussed witchfire powers. They follow all the normal rules for witchfire, but you can choose the specific model in the target unit that you want the power to affect. When the Psychic test is taken for focussed witchfire, pay close attention to the number of Warp Charge points harnessed. If the total number of Warp Charge points harnessed exceeds the Warp Charge cost required to manifest the psychic power, the power is resolved against the model you chose. If the cost to manifest the power is met, but not exceeded, resolve the power against the closest model in the target unit instead."

Nothing about rolling to hit there, but the FW's " follow all the normal rules for witchfire" which include rolling to hit.

How many dice do you roll to hit for Spontaneous Combustion?

 DeathReaper wrote:
"Spontaneous Combustion is a focussed witchfire power with a range of 18". The target model suffers a Strength 6 AP3 hit with the Soul Blaze special rule. If the model is slain by this hit in the Psychic phase, centre the small blast marker over the target before removing him as a casualty. All other models under the marker suffer a Strength 5 AP4 hit with the Ignores Cover and Soul Blaze special rules." (Psychic Powers section, Pyromancy subsection, 3rd power).

the Focused Witchfire rules, in The Psychic Phase section state: "Some witchfire powers can pick out models in an enemy unit – these are called focussed witchfire powers. They follow all the normal rules for witchfire, but you can choose the specific model in the target unit that you want the power to affect. When the Psychic test is taken for focussed witchfire, pay close attention to the number of Warp Charge points harnessed. If the total number of Warp Charge points harnessed exceeds the Warp Charge cost required to manifest the psychic power, the power is resolved against the model you chose. If the cost to manifest the power is met, but not exceeded, resolve the power against the closest model in the target unit instead."

Nothing about rolling to hit there, but the FW's " follow all the normal rules for witchfire" which include rolling to hit.

How many dice do you roll to hit for Spontaneous Combustion?

Single target, single hit, again, fairly obvious.

If you compare Psychic Shriek to Biomancy's Smite, it's quite clear that one of them has a weapon profile (that says Assault2), and one that does not.

So in the case of Smite, there are clear instructions on how to roll to hit: you treat it like you would any ranged weapon, but use additional steps (a Psychic Test and a DtW) in resolving the attack.

In the case of Shriek, it's much less clear, because it actually does not have a profile. All it has is a Range, with a Special Rule.

One side has rules that dont work, the other side makes up rules to cover the event.

Lol Zodiark. Still missing the point.

Find a requirement for a successful to-hit before you get to roll 3d6. I'm saying it again, in the hope you will spot I am NOT saying you do not need to roll to hut

Again: I agree you should roll to hit. This is not under contention.

What I do require you to answer and cite, and actual rules this time, is where the RESULT of the to hit matters.

Pages and para. Cite it. Not your "but logic and interpretation" gak that you keep insisting is both RAW and isn't raw, but paged and para

If you do not, your argument is voided. Nullified. It does not exist as a valid argument

Finally, stop saying most. I didn't play a single tournament in 6th where it rolled to hit, as everyone could work out, correctly, that while one is needed, it doesn't affect whether you actually resolve the rest of the power. That's 12 or so tournaments, each riling the same way. I get that is more than your sample. Yet I still won't claim it is the majority position, as I understand stats.

Zodiark wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
"Spontaneous Combustion is a focussed witchfire power with a range of 18". The target model suffers a Strength 6 AP3 hit with the Soul Blaze special rule. If the model is slain by this hit in the Psychic phase, centre the small blast marker over the target before removing him as a casualty. All other models under the marker suffer a Strength 5 AP4 hit with the Ignores Cover and Soul Blaze special rules." (Psychic Powers section, Pyromancy subsection, 3rd power).

the Focused Witchfire rules, in The Psychic Phase section state: "Some witchfire powers can pick out models in an enemy unit – these are called focussed witchfire powers. They follow all the normal rules for witchfire, but you can choose the specific model in the target unit that you want the power to affect. When the Psychic test is taken for focussed witchfire, pay close attention to the number of Warp Charge points harnessed. If the total number of Warp Charge points harnessed exceeds the Warp Charge cost required to manifest the psychic power, the power is resolved against the model you chose. If the cost to manifest the power is met, but not exceeded, resolve the power against the closest model in the target unit instead."

Nothing about rolling to hit there, but the FW's " follow all the normal rules for witchfire" which include rolling to hit.

How many dice do you roll to hit for Spontaneous Combustion?

Single target, single hit, again, fairly obvious.

What rules do you have to back up your assertation?

Also how about for Haemorrhage? That one can hit multiple models.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Lol Zodiark. Still missing the point.

Find a requirement for a successful to-hit before you get to roll 3d6. I'm saying it again, in the hope you will spot I am NOT saying you do not need to roll to hut

Again: I agree you should roll to hit. This is not under contention.

What I do require you to answer and cite, and actual rules this time, is where the RESULT of the to hit matters.

Pages and para. Cite it. Not your "but logic and interpretation" gak that you keep insisting is both RAW and isn't raw, but paged and para

If you do not, your argument is voided. Nullified. It does not exist as a valid argument

Finally, stop saying most. I didn't play a single tournament in 6th where it rolled to hit, as everyone could work out, correctly, that while one is needed, it doesn't affect whether you actually resolve the rest of the power. That's 12 or so tournaments, each riling the same way. I get that is more than your sample. Yet I still won't claim it is the majority position, as I understand stats.

You have no rules or facts to support your argument, you're done and I am done with you


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
"Spontaneous Combustion is a focussed witchfire power with a range of 18". The target model suffers a Strength 6 AP3 hit with the Soul Blaze special rule. If the model is slain by this hit in the Psychic phase, centre the small blast marker over the target before removing him as a casualty. All other models under the marker suffer a Strength 5 AP4 hit with the Ignores Cover and Soul Blaze special rules." (Psychic Powers section, Pyromancy subsection, 3rd power).

the Focused Witchfire rules, in The Psychic Phase section state: "Some witchfire powers can pick out models in an enemy unit – these are called focussed witchfire powers. They follow all the normal rules for witchfire, but you can choose the specific model in the target unit that you want the power to affect. When the Psychic test is taken for focussed witchfire, pay close attention to the number of Warp Charge points harnessed. If the total number of Warp Charge points harnessed exceeds the Warp Charge cost required to manifest the psychic power, the power is resolved against the model you chose. If the cost to manifest the power is met, but not exceeded, resolve the power against the closest model in the target unit instead."

Nothing about rolling to hit there, but the FW's " follow all the normal rules for witchfire" which include rolling to hit.

How many dice do you roll to hit for Spontaneous Combustion?

Single target, single hit, again, fairly obvious.

What rules do you have to back up your assertation?

Also how about for Haemorrhage? That one can hit multiple models.

The rules for Focused Witchfire clearly states as you posted that they follow the normal rules for witchfire which follows the rules for shooting attacks. As has been stated numerous times, hell I've even put you in contact with people who can tell you the same answer, employees of the company, those who enforce the rules at the shop if any disputes happen yet still you try and argue the point. You're done, you have provided no facts to support your position.

Play it how you want in your own place but you no longer have a leg to stand on when telling others how to play when you blatantly discount people who present to you a WIDELY and GW accepted position.

Good day sir, may the dice ever roll in your favor.

Zodiark wrote:
The rules for Focused Witchfire clearly states as you posted that they follow the normal rules for witchfire which follows the rules for shooting attacks. As has been stated numerous times, hell I've even put you in contact with people who can tell you the same answer, employees of the company, those who enforce the rules at the shop if any disputes happen yet still you try and argue the point. You're done, you have provided no facts to support your position.

Play it how you want in your own place but you no longer have a leg to stand on when telling others how to play when you blatantly discount people who present to you a WIDELY and GW accepted position.

Good day sir, may the dice ever roll in your favor.

I e-mailed them, they gave me a completely different answer...

So they are not reliable at all to solve rules questions.

Please tell me where the rules are that say you need a successful to hit roll to resolve Psychic Shriek, or any of the focused witchfire powers. I am still waiting on the citation of actual rules that says this. You have not answered this question.

Why do you arbitrarily assign one die to roll to hit with Psychic Shriek?

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 extremefreak17 wrote:
How do you guys have the energy to argue this when the intent is clear as day?

Because (a) we're discussing the rules, not intent and (b) the intent is clear as day to some people that you do roll to hit and if you hit it does nothing, while the intent is clear as day to other people that you do not roll to hit.

Okay, I need a show of hands here. Who actually thinks that a successful manifestation of a Witchfire was not intended to be dependant on the roll to hit that the rules tell you to make?

 extremefreak17 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 extremefreak17 wrote:
How do you guys have the energy to argue this when the intent is clear as day?

Because (a) we're discussing the rules, not intent and (b) the intent is clear as day to some people that you do roll to hit and if you hit it does nothing, while the intent is clear as day to other people that you do not roll to hit.

Okay, I need a show of hands here. Who actually thinks that a successful manifestation of a Witchfire was not intended to be dependant on the roll to hit that the rules tell you to make?

If it has a profile then the witchfire is dependent on the to hit roll(s).

If it does not have a profile the roll to hit does not matter as we are not told how many dice to roll to hit.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
The rules for Focused Witchfire clearly states as you posted that they follow the normal rules for witchfire which follows the rules for shooting attacks. As has been stated numerous times, hell I've even put you in contact with people who can tell you the same answer, employees of the company, those who enforce the rules at the shop if any disputes happen yet still you try and argue the point. You're done, you have provided no facts to support your position.

Play it how you want in your own place but you no longer have a leg to stand on when telling others how to play when you blatantly discount people who present to you a WIDELY and GW accepted position.

Good day sir, may the dice ever roll in your favor.

I e-mailed them, they gave me a completely different answer...

So they are not reliable at all to solve rules questions.

Please tell me where the rules are that say you need a successful to hit roll to resolve Psychic Shriek, or any of the focused witchfire powers. I am still waiting on the citation of actual rules that says this.

E-mails are unreliable according to YMDC.

I gave you a number to speak to an actual person, not a crackpot customer service rep who simply sells you stuff. You can even have this person put you in contact with other GW workers and they'll give you the same answer.

Reading comprehension is clearly not your strong suit either. It is implied when rolling to hit that you need to be successful to hit, otherwise it would be stated otherwise.

I am waiting for a citation, any citation from any position from your side of this discussion that supports anything you have mentioned. So far, a handful of people, including myself have referenced numerous things and even provided examples, you simply choose not to accept them as valid as they are "vague" or "subject to interpretation"

This is YMDC. When you get right down to it, its a place to discuss homebrew rules, not facts, which makes me arguing here pointless as to me, this is clear as day.

But to people like you this is a place to search for facts which is entirely the opposite of this place if you look at the tenets.

We are theory crafting here, not discussing facts, at least you aren't.

You are looking for something specific because you lack the understanding to see a direct answer when it is right in front of you.

Now please, either play it as you want at home or buck up, call an actual employee who works at a shop and not corporate office and have them give you the answer that I know they will.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
The rules for Focused Witchfire clearly states as you posted that they follow the normal rules for witchfire which follows the rules for shooting attacks. As has been stated numerous times, hell I've even put you in contact with people who can tell you the same answer, employees of the company, those who enforce the rules at the shop if any disputes happen yet still you try and argue the point. You're done, you have provided no facts to support your position.

Play it how you want in your own place but you no longer have a leg to stand on when telling others how to play when you blatantly discount people who present to you a WIDELY and GW accepted position.

Good day sir, may the dice ever roll in your favor.

I e-mailed them, they gave me a completely different answer...

So they are not reliable at all to solve rules questions.

Please tell me where the rules are that say you need a successful to hit roll to resolve Psychic Shriek, or any of the focused witchfire powers. I am still waiting on the citation of actual rules that says this. You have not answered this question.

Why do you arbitrarily assign one die to roll to hit with Psychic Shriek?

Not arbitrary, this is what I was told by the GW shop worker and every player at the place when I brought it up. PS is considered a single shot, multiple wound power. You get one dice. Call the number I provided or stop beating a dead horse. You have no facts or basis for any argument anymore so you're just wasting time


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 extremefreak17 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 extremefreak17 wrote:
How do you guys have the energy to argue this when the intent is clear as day?

Because (a) we're discussing the rules, not intent and (b) the intent is clear as day to some people that you do roll to hit and if you hit it does nothing, while the intent is clear as day to other people that you do not roll to hit.

Okay, I need a show of hands here. Who actually thinks that a successful manifestation of a Witchfire was not intended to be dependant on the roll to hit that the rules tell you to make?

If it has a profile then the witchfire is dependent on the to hit roll(s).

If it does not have a profile the roll to hit does not matter as we are not told how many dice to roll to hit.

2nd assertion is false. It still counts as a shooting attack and you roll to hit unless told otherwise. These are the RAW. Read them, learn them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 extremefreak17 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 extremefreak17 wrote:
How do you guys have the energy to argue this when the intent is clear as day?

Because (a) we're discussing the rules, not intent and (b) the intent is clear as day to some people that you do roll to hit and if you hit it does nothing, while the intent is clear as day to other people that you do not roll to hit.

Okay, I need a show of hands here. Who actually thinks that a successful manifestation of a Witchfire was not intended to be dependant on the roll to hit that the rules tell you to make?

Considering it's a shooting attack, it is entirely dependent on a roll to hit.

Zodiark wrote:
E-mails are unreliable according to YMDC.

Then why did you say this:

Zodiark wrote:
hell I've even put you in contact with people who can tell you the same answer, employees of the company, those who enforce the rules at the shop if any disputes happen yet still you try and argue the point. You're done, you have provided no facts to support your position.

Zodiark wrote:

Not arbitrary, this is what I was told by the GW shop worker and every player at the place when I brought it up. PS is considered a single shot, multiple wound power. You get one dice. Call the number I provided or stop beating a dead horse. You have no facts or basis for any argument anymore so you're just wasting time

So nothing from the actual rules then? just some appeal to authority logical fallacy?

I also called GW, I got a different answer...

Zodiark wrote:
It still counts as a shooting attack and you roll to hit unless told otherwise. These are the RAW. Read them, learn them.

Right it needs a roll to hit, I will roll 100 dice to hit, you roll 1, both numbers are fabricated out of thin air.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 extremefreak17 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 extremefreak17 wrote:
How do you guys have the energy to argue this when the intent is clear as day?

Because (a) we're discussing the rules, not intent and (b) the intent is clear as day to some people that you do roll to hit and if you hit it does nothing, while the intent is clear as day to other people that you do not roll to hit.

Okay, I need a show of hands here. Who actually thinks that a successful manifestation of a Witchfire was not intended to be dependant on the roll to hit that the rules tell you to make?

If it has a profile then the witchfire is dependent on the to hit roll(s).

If it does not have a profile the roll to hit does not matter as we are not told how many dice to roll to hit.

"a witchfire power must roll To Hit"
Is there some sort of specific exception to this that I am missing? I think RAW you cant get by that. Now is there any RAW to support that the roll is connected to the resolution? I cant find it, but given that they are telling us we must roll for all witchfires, I think we can assume they intended the rolls to mean something, even for powers without a profile.

 DeathReaper wrote:

If it does not have a profile the roll to hit does not matter as we are not told how many dice to roll to hit.

You have a citation for this? That sounds like a house rule used to fill a hole in the RAW.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
E-mails are unreliable according to YMDC.

Then why did you say this:

Zodiark wrote:
hell I've even put you in contact with people who can tell you the same answer, employees of the company, those who enforce the rules at the shop if any disputes happen yet still you try and argue the point. You're done, you have provided no facts to support your position.

Earlier in the thread I provided a telephone number to a GW shop that I frequent where the rules were told to me. I was debating on putting the other 3 GW shops near me I frequent as well but I figured this would be redundant as one is more than enough to prove my point.

BRB/FAQ, primary sources for all rules question, after this it goes GW employees, judges, shop owners, players. Seeing as none of you are anything more than players and are using your own opinions, I refer to the shop owners and above because a player is just a player.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dracos wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

If it does not have a profile the roll to hit does not matter as we are not told how many dice to roll to hit.

You have a citation for this? That sounds like a house rule used to fill a hole in the RAW.

That is exactly what it is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 extremefreak17 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 extremefreak17 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 extremefreak17 wrote:
How do you guys have the energy to argue this when the intent is clear as day?

Because (a) we're discussing the rules, not intent and (b) the intent is clear as day to some people that you do roll to hit and if you hit it does nothing, while the intent is clear as day to other people that you do not roll to hit.

Okay, I need a show of hands here. Who actually thinks that a successful manifestation of a Witchfire was not intended to be dependant on the roll to hit that the rules tell you to make?

If it has a profile then the witchfire is dependent on the to hit roll(s).

If it does not have a profile the roll to hit does not matter as we are not told how many dice to roll to hit.

"a witchfire power must roll To Hit"
Is there some sort of specific exception to this that I am missing? I think RAW you cant get by that. Now is there any RAW to support that the roll is connected to the resolution? I cant find it, but given that they are telling us we must roll for all witchfires, I think we can assume they intended the rolls to mean something, even for powers without a profile.

You are indeed correct. They intended for us to roll and resolve as required for shooting attacks.

 extremefreak17 wrote:
"a witchfire power must roll To Hit"
Is there some sort of specific exception to this that I am missing? I think RAW you cant get by that. Now is there any RAW to support that the roll is connected to the resolution? I cant find it, but given that they are telling us we must roll for all witchfires, I think we can assume they intended the rolls to mean something, even for powers without a profile.

(Emphasis mine)

No good comes from assuming when talking about RAW.

Stop quoting GW reps. It is against forum rules, and no one trusts your account of it. Stop please.

 Dracos wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

If it does not have a profile the roll to hit does not matter as we are not told how many dice to roll to hit.

You have a citation for this? That sounds like a house rule used to fill a hole in the RAW.

We are not told how many dice to roll to hit. is not a house rule...

But your assertion that the roll therefore does not matter is...

 Dracos wrote:
Stop quoting GW reps. It is against forum rules, and no one trusts your account of it. Stop please.

At this point, I'm okay with doing it because the theory crafting and constant arguing with this topic which has gone on for years simply is not working. We need an actual source of authority and the only ones that matter are BRB and GW employees. Players telling players how rules should be done as if they were experts without any viable sources is simply not viable.

Also, rules state e-mails which can be fabricated. Phone calls to a GW shop with an actual employee who enforces rules when people play there does not violate


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dracos wrote:
But your assertion that the roll therefore does not matter is...

He doesn't see the distinction

 Dracos wrote:
But your assertion that the roll therefore does not matter is...

Not at all.

The power does not have a profile. If it did then a roll to hot would matter because if it were assault 1, we know from the weapon rules that a successful hit matters.

Psychic shriek, or indeed any focused witchfire powers are not dependent on the roll to hit because they do not have a profile. We are instructed to resolve the effects of the power according to the instructions in its entry. Psychic Shriek does not mention a to hit roll, so we ignore it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zodiark wrote:
Also, rules state e-mails which can be fabricated. Phone calls to a GW shop with an actual employee who enforces rules when people play there does not violate

I also called, the person on the phone said it does not require a successful to hit roll.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Dracos wrote:
But your assertion that the roll therefore does not matter is...

Not at all.

The power does not have a profile. If it did then a roll to hot would matter because if it were assault 1, we know from the weapon rules that a successful hit matters.

Psychic shriek, or indeed any focused witchfire powers are not dependent on the roll to hit because they do not have a profile. We are instructed to resolve the effects of the power according to the instructions in its entry. Psychic Shriek does not mention a to hit roll, so we ignore it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zodiark wrote:
Also, rules state e-mails which can be fabricated. Phone calls to a GW shop with an actual employee who enforces rules when people play there does not violate

I also called, the person on the phone said it does not require a successful to hit roll.

Location and number for shop please, I'll verify myself

I provided my shops info for everyone to call and get an answer, only fair you do the same

Zodiark - so when asked to prove your assertions, you dissemble?

Very convincing.

You cannot prove that a successful to-hit is required before you resolve the rest of the power. You have been asked for an actual rule, and all you can point to is a blackshirt. Well, I know five, all say you're wrong. So I guess you're wrong.oh wait, they aren't a valid source for YMDC, as they are a) unreliable and b) there to just sell you stuff and lastly c) generally know the actual rules very poorly, as they have little chance to play. I know this first hand, I suspect you do not

Stop using these as anything for an argument, as they're useless. Utterly, 100% useless as a source for rules

You have no rules argument. You are now simply trolling, as you cannot follow rule one, you cannot cite an acceptable source, and have yet to back up your assertions with anything resembling a cogent argument. You have, by dint of failing to come up with a single pertinent rules quote, conceded.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Dracos wrote:
But your assertion that the roll therefore does not matter is...

Not at all.

The power does not have a profile. If it did then a roll to hot would matter because if it were assault 1, we know from the weapon rules that a successful hit matters.

Psychic shriek, or indeed any focused witchfire powers are not dependent on the roll to hit because they do not have a profile. We are instructed to resolve the effects of the power according to the instructions in its entry. Psychic Shriek does not mention a to hit roll, so we ignore it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zodiark wrote:
Also, rules state e-mails which can be fabricated. Phone calls to a GW shop with an actual employee who enforces rules when people play there does not violate

I also called, the person on the phone said it does not require a successful to hit roll.

Psychic Shriek itself doesn't, but it is a witchfire so you must as per witchfire rules, there is no legitimate way to avoid it?

Zodiark wrote:
Location and number for shop please, I'll verify myself

I provided my shops info for everyone to call and get an answer, only fair you do the same

I called GW customer service, their number is 1-800-394-4263


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zodiark wrote:
Psychic Shriek itself doesn't, but it is a witchfire so you must as per witchfire rules, there is no legitimate way to avoid it?

Why did you contradict yourself?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Zodiark - so when asked to prove your assertions, you dissemble?

Very convincing.

You cannot prove that a successful to-hit is required before you resolve the rest of the power. You have been asked for an actual rule, and all you can point to is a blackshirt. Well, I know five, all say you're wrong. So I guess you're wrong.

You have no rules argument. You are now simply trolling, as you cannot follow rule one, you cannot cite an acceptable source, and have yet to back up your assertions with anything resembling a cogent argument. You have, by dint of failing to come up with a single pertinent rules quote, conceded.

Cite rules for resolving a shooting attack. Witchfire is a shooting attack.

Shooting rules. You roll to hit, if you do not successfully hit, you miss.

/end trollish discussion

As PS is a witchfire power and it HAS to roll-to hit as per rules in the description of witchfire, you must roll.

/end trollish discussion

Now, I have provided examples from the text, where are yours? You have none and we both know it so once again

/end trollish discussion




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
Location and number for shop please, I'll verify myself

I provided my shops info for everyone to call and get an answer, only fair you do the same

I called GW customer service, their number is 1-800-394-4263


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zodiark wrote:
Psychic Shriek itself doesn't, but it is a witchfire so you must as per witchfire rules, there is no legitimate way to avoid it?

Why did you contradict yourself?

I said provide information from a shop, not a customer service line. They sell products, they do not cite rules. Once again, a valid shop with an employee who not only plays but enforces rules.

2nd portion. I did not. PS in its description makes no mention of rolling to hit which is where this issue originated from. You would then refer to the rules for witchfire where you see that you have to roll to hit unless it states otherwise which PS does not.

So still no denial of permission to resolve the power according to its entry?

Awesome.

Zodiark wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Zodiark - so when asked to prove your assertions, you dissemble?

Very convincing.

You cannot prove that a successful to-hit is required before you resolve the rest of the power. You have been asked for an actual rule, and all you can point to is a blackshirt. Well, I know five, all say you're wrong. So I guess you're wrong.

You have no rules argument. You are now simply trolling, as you cannot follow rule one, you cannot cite an acceptable source, and have yet to back up your assertions with anything resembling a cogent argument. You have, by dint of failing to come up with a single pertinent rules quote, conceded.

Cite rules for resolving a shooting attack. Witchfire is a shooting attack.

Shooting rules. You roll to hit, if you do not successfully hit, you miss.

/end trollish discussion

As PS is a witchfire power and it HAS to roll-to hit as per rules in the description of witchfire, you must roll.

/end trollish discussion

Now, I have provided examples from the text, where are yours? You have none and we both know it so once again

/end trollish discussion

Sigh.

Rule one. Reported, again.

I have bolded your critical misunderstanding of the rules.

You do not "miss". You are not allowed to roll to-wound. Now, given the 3d6 resolution isn't a roll to-wound, YOU are required to prove that if you do not successfully hit, that you cannot roll the 3d6... Effect.

Pages and para. The onus is on YOU as you are claiming there is a rule. I am claiming the absence of this requirement, meaning YOU have to prove existence, one mor chance - failing to do so is you conceding.

T your second "end trolling discussion" you do realise I already said that? I ACCEPT you roll to hit. I am questioning the OUTCOME of the to hit and it's necessity. There are only so many ways to state this, but this is utter proof you aren't actually bothering to read my posts. That is also rude.

Zodiark wrote:
Cite rules for resolving a shooting attack. Witchfire is a shooting attack.

Shooting rules. You roll to hit, if you do not successfully hit, you miss.

Awesome!
Now, what happens when a witchfire without a profile misses? Cite rules to back up your statements.

Nos is correct, there does not seem to be a rule that says if you fail your "to-hit" roll for a witchfire (without a profile) that it fails to resolve. Granted.

However, you are still glossing over the fact that you must roll an unknown number of dice. The power simply does not work RAW for that reason.

Now, HIWPI is to house rule the number of dice to 1 and have the power fail on a miss of the "to hit" roll, but any way you resolve this power must be a house rule as you simple do not have the information required to complete the power.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Zodiark - so when asked to prove your assertions, you dissemble?

Very convincing.

You cannot prove that a successful to-hit is required before you resolve the rest of the power. You have been asked for an actual rule, and all you can point to is a blackshirt. Well, I know five, all say you're wrong. So I guess you're wrong.

You have no rules argument. You are now simply trolling, as you cannot follow rule one, you cannot cite an acceptable source, and have yet to back up your assertions with anything resembling a cogent argument. You have, by dint of failing to come up with a single pertinent rules quote, conceded.

Cite rules for resolving a shooting attack. Witchfire is a shooting attack.

Shooting rules. You roll to hit, if you do not successfully hit, you miss.

/end trollish discussion

As PS is a witchfire power and it HAS to roll-to hit as per rules in the description of witchfire, you must roll.

/end trollish discussion

Now, I have provided examples from the text, where are yours? You have none and we both know it so once again

/end trollish discussion

Sigh.

Rule one. Reported, again.

I have bolded your critical misunderstanding of the rules.

You do not "miss". You are not allowed to roll to-wound. Now, given the 3d6 resolution isn't a roll to-wound, YOU are required to prove that if you do not successfully hit, that you cannot roll the 3d6... Effect.

Pages and para. The onus is on YOU as you are claiming there is a rule. I am claiming the absence of this requirement, meaning YOU have to prove existence, one mor chance - failing to do so is you conceding.

T your second "end trolling discussion" you do realise I already said that? I ACCEPT you roll to hit. I am questioning the OUTCOME of the to hit and it's necessity. There are only so many ways to state this, but this is utter proof you aren't actually bothering to read my posts. That is also rude.

Seriously, another report, cmon man, do something that matters, like contributing to the discussion, could care less for reports.

The only way to not roll 3d6 is if you fail the roll to hit.

You have cited zero rules that state that you do not need a hit or miss for a rolls effect to happen with a witchfire when the answer is fairly obvious and described in the shooting section

I have read every one of your posts, hence why I know you are doing nothing but arguing for the sake of argument. You have cited NOTHING from the text to back up anything you claim whereas I have provided you with references which you ignore and ask for a specific one that backs mine up when, if you knew how to comprehend the rules, you would find on your own.

I'm seriously tired of you so I'm just gonna report, ignore you and go about my day because you are a waste of my time